INGERSOLLISM 



BROUGHT FACE TO FACE 



WITH 



CHRISTIANITY. 



TWO SERMONS PREACHED 

REV. J. H. CALDWELL, D. D., 



AT THE REQUEST OF OFFICIAL MEMBERS OF ST. PAUL'S M. E. CHURCH, 
JANUARY 1 6, 1 88 1. 




\ND published in compliance with a resoluti on of the 

WILMINGTON PREACHERS' MEETING. 



50LD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF THE METHODIST EPIS- 
COPAL CHURCH. 




WILMINGTON, DEL. : 

THE JAMES & WEBB PRINTING AND STATIONERY COMPANY. 

I88l. 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 



The Wilmington M. E. Preachers' Meeting at its session on Monday, Jan. 
17th, 1880, adopted the following : 

Whereas, Col. Robert G. Ingersoll has publicly blasphemed the name ol ' 
our God, assailed our holy Religion and denounced Christianity as superstition and ' 
hypocrisy. And whereas the Rev. J. H. Caldwell, D. D., pastor of St. Paul's M. : 
E. Church of this city, has delivered from his pulpit two sermons on Ingersollism, 
exposing its fallacies and pernicious tendency. Therefore be it 

Risoived, that the said sermons should have a wider circulation and that Dr. 
J. H. Caldwell be requested to publish, or permit them to be published in pamph- 
let form, in order that they may be conveniently distributed and preserved. 



tion of your two sermons on "Ingersollism." They cannot fail to offset the evil 
influence of the extended circulation of the noted Lecturer's views ; and I hopi 
the sermons will have the attentive reading of thousands in our community, an< 



EDWARD DAVIS. 



President Wilmington M. E. Preachers' Meeting I 



A. STENGLE, Secretary. 




elsewhere. 



L. C. MATLACK. 



P. E. Wilmington District 



i 



Wilmington, Del., Jan. 22, 188 1. 



:: 

i 
t 



I concur with Dr. Matlack's recommendation, 



L. SCOTT. 



One of the Bishops of the M. E. Church 



* 



INGERSOLLISM BROUGHT FACE TO 
FACE WITH CHRISTIANITY. 



" And the servants of the King of Syria said unto him, 1 heir 
ygods are gods of the hills; titer ej ore they were stronger than we; 
ybut let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be 
^stronger than they!' I Kings xx : 23. 

j "And what concord hath Christ with Belial t or what part 
hath he that believeth with an infidel?" 2 Cor. vi : 15. 

I cannot help being somewhat personal to-day. I am to 
speak of what I call Ingersollism, by which I mean the system of 
infidelity propagated by Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, and in which 
. I embrace his peculiar methods of propagation. I cannot separ- 
ate Ingersollism from the person whose name is Ingersoll, any 
more than I can separate a tree from its shadow. Ingersoll is the 
tree — Ingersollism the shadow. I would gladly spare the tree, but 
must destroy the shadow if I can, because of the evil which it 
^does. I have a garden to cultivate with tender plants growing in 
it, which can only flourish in the sunshine. If Ingersoll's shadow 
jfalls upon them I must endeavor to remove it, so they can still 
enjoy the light of the sun. Some of my plants that have been 
chilled by this dismal shadow have turned to me beseechingly, 
•and said : " Let us have the light ;" and I am determined to do 
the best I can to let them have it. If in touching the shadow the 
tree or any of its branches should complain, and say I strike too 
hard, I can only say in reply, as did the famous philosopher to the 
;young king, "Stand out of my sunshine." 

I have the full dimensions of his shadow in a printed copy of 
his lecture, which he assures us under his own signature, is the 
only " correct and authorized edition." 

When the king of Syria was defeated by the Israelites, his 
servants said to him, " Their gods are gods of the hills, therefore 
they were stronger than we ; but let us fight against them in the 
plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they." Ingersollism 



4 



has chosen to stand on the plain of this lower world with its earth- 
born gods ; I stand with the God of the hills, whose name is 
Jehovah. On Mount Zion I take my position, and look down 
upon the valley below. It is the valley of the shadow of deathi 
and now I say to this adversary of my God, stand up and face Him. 
One thing I know, that, whether on hill top or plain, my God is 
the stronger, so I give this challenge to-day, Stand up, Ingersoll- 
ism, and face the God of the everlasting hills. My present topic is 

INGERSOLLISM. 

First, Its Infidelity. Col. Robert G. Ingersoll has openly 
avowed and attempted to defend infidelity, therefore Ingersollism, 
as set forth by him, is infidelity. What is infidelity ? In its broad 
est sense it means unbelief ; disbelief ; and specifically the disbe- 
lief of Christianity. Mark, it is not merely wz'sbelief, but disbelief ; 
not merely a bad faith, an imperfect faith, but no faith at all. Mr. 
Ingersoll's attacks upon belief, upon faith, upon the Christian 
Creeds of every kind, make Ingersollism infidelity. Infidelity 
goes by different names, indicating distinctive differences II 
Christianity is divided into different sects, owing to differences in 
creed, ecclesiastical government, and ritual observances, so is infi- 
delity divided and subdivided into various sects and fragmentary 
parts. Therefore it is not anything more to the disparagement ol 
Christianity that Christians differ in opinion, than it is disparaging 
to infidelity that infidels also disagree. But on either hand there 
are common grounds of unification, so that as Christianity is one 
as to its essence of faith, infidelity is also one in the essence of un- 
belief. If one is properly called The Unity OF FAITH, which! 
makes all true believers one body in Christ, the other with equal! 
propriety may be called the Unity of Unbelief, which makes al 
infidels one body in antagonism to Christ. Ingersollism directs al 
its energies to one point, the destruction of Christian belief ; hence 
the conflict of this hour. I will briefly enumerate some of the 
prominent forms of infidelity, 1 and set forth the principle of their 
unification. Atheism is the first, perhaps worst, form of infidelity 
It literally means ivithout God. It is the absolute negation of God 
of any Divine Being. Among the wisest of the Greek philoso- 
phers Atheism was considered synonymous with wickedness, be- 
■ cause it engendered and encouraged the most odious forms of vice: 



i. See Christlieb's Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. 



5 



. Therefore Atheists were some times banished as enemies of the 
I >'tate, and their names stigmatized as infamous. Modern Atheism-' 
Is no better than ancient Atheism. If Ingersollism is Atheism, I 
vill show by Ingersoll's own admissions that it is the worst form of 
Athei sm. The next iorm of infidelity is Materialism. It merges 
jod in matter, and holds that outside of matter there is nothing. 
Ml that exists is material ; there is no separate spiritual exist- 
ence ; that which is called spirit, or spiritual life, is nothing but a 
unction of bodily life. Materialism and Atheism are twin brothers, 
:hey play into each other's hands, and amount, in fact, to the same 
:hing. Materialism has been well called " the gospel of the flesh," 
Decause it is the " absolute deification of matter and of the crea- 
:ure." The Materialists say that " the soul is the product of the 
brain's development;" that "Man is what he ears," that he is 
l ' made of wind and ashes," that "vegetable life called him into 
existence ;" that " he is nothing more than a mosaic figure made 
up of different atoms ;" that in matter may be discerned '' the 
promise and potency of every form and quality of life." 2 This is 
Materialism. Ingersollism accepts it when it bids you fear no God 
but yourself ; when it declares the absolute supremacy of natural 
law, and when it tells you, in effect, that you have the capacity 
for self-salvation, which is nothing more than salvation from pov- 
erty in this world, salvation from physical disease, salvation from 
mental disorders, which all have their seat in the body. Mr. In- 
gersoll determined to save himself, and by his remunerative lectures 
he is hard at work, trying to save himself, at least from poverty. 

The third kind of infidelity is Pantheism. It acknowledges a 
(God, but the universe itself is that God. " Beyond and outside of 
the world he does not exist, but only in the world." He is the 
Soul, the Reason, the Spirit of the world, and all nature is his 
body. The motto of Pantheism is En Kai Pan — ONE AND ALL. 
All things are God, but there is no God outside of nature. There 
is no personal, spiritual God outside of the mind and matter that 
are in the world— but all existing mind and matter is God, and 
therefore Ingersoll is God. Ingersollism makes itself Pantheistic 
when it denies a spiritual, personal God, and yet talks about God 
and the paramount control of all things by natural law. In its 
last analysis Pantheism is nothing but blind force, operating with- 
out intelligence and without a plan. The last form of infidelity 



2. Prof. Tyndall's Belfast Address. 



6 



thatl shall mention is Deism. It was formerly called Naturalism 
as opposed to the supernatural ; but is now merged in the more 
general name — Rationalism, which holds to the supremacy of hu- 
man reason. But Deism— at least the old form of it, until it 
merged into materialism and pantheism which in fact are modern 
Atheism, — recognizes a God, a personal God, a spiritual God, a 
creating God. But this God, after making the world, left it to 
take care of itself. He did not even appoint a guardian for it, or 
make any arrangement to rectify it when it goes wrong, but treats 
it like an artificer treats a machine which he has made, and leaves 
to the operation of mechanical laws to pursue its course accord- 
ingly. This was the God of the old English Deists, and I believe 
of Tom Paine. It differs from Pantheism in this, that it believes 
in a personal, Spiritual God. Pantheism makes God every thing 
in nature ; the gnat and the elephant, the savage and the philoso- 
pher are constituent parts of the God of Pantheism, and, per con- 
sequence, Ingersoll is God. He does not believe in an Omnipresent 
and spiritual God, but scoffs at the idea when he discovers in our 
Lord's, words in John about the wind blowing where itlisteth, the 
idea of a Real Presence. He contemns the idea of an Omniscient, 
all-Wise, Intelligent God, whom he speaks of as the " Eves- 
dropper of the Universe." He utterly ignores, scoffs at and ridi- 
cules the God of the Bible. The Universe is his Bible. 

Now these different forms of infidelity sometimes blend, and 
seem to be closely united ; at other times they diverge, and present 
different phenomena ; but they all bear the family likeness of 
brothers, and spring from a common parent — UNBELIEF. This is 
the first common principle of their unification, this is the common 
bond of their consanguinity. This has its necessary correlate, that 
is a common antagonism to Christian belief. If you spend but one - 
half hour in tracing the phenomena of Ingersollism, you will dis- 
cover that this is its essence. It is the deadly enemy of the Chris- 
tian faith ; it is hostile to all creeds that bear the name of Christian ; 
it blindly assaults them all with scarcely any discrimination, mak- 
ing little or no difference between the superstitious credulity of 
an ignorant fanatic, and the rational belief of a cultured divine like 
Jonathan Edwards, and a philosopher like Sir Isaac Newton. It 
sees scarcely any difference between the religion of Roman Catho- 
lics as it exists in Portugal, Spain and Italy, and that of Protes- 
tants which has combatted it for three hundred and fifty years, thus 



7 



| gnoring the grandest history of the world and the grandest achiev- 
e ments of that history. It is the bitter, fierce, uncompromising 
■ enemy of all faith but faith in itself. It is an impious and audacious 
t self-assertion against God and religion. Such is the infidelity of 
Ingersollism. 

Second, Its Stump Oratory. Mr. Ingersoll is an orator, and I 
am told a most powerful and captivating orator, an orator of won- 
derful magnetism, who draws to him almost all sorts of people, cul- 
tivated and illiterate, refined and vulgar, reputable and disreputable, 
and bewitches them until they become wild with excitement, and 
applause becomes, as it were, epidemic. If such talents were con- 
secrated to the elevation and improvement of mankind in civil gov- 
ernment, in education, in temperance or other wholesome moral 
reforms, they would win for him an enviable reputation and immor- 
tal honor. But he spends his time and strength in endeavoring to 
pull down and destroy the most venerable, the most sacred, the most 
beneficent institutions that ever brought light, truth and happiness 
to the human race He is the apostle of infidelity, the prophet of 
the baser instincts of humanity, and degrades himself by adopting 
the occupation of a mere speech-maker, an itinerant stump-orator, 
whose influence can be seen and felt only in contributing to the 
growth of infidelity, of communism, of socialism, of popular discon- 
tent, and, I doubt not, of ultimate tumult which will some day ap- 
pear in violent attempts to reconstruct society itself, and constrain 
it to adopt his principles. 3 In this his system differs from the old 
infidelity, and deserves the distinctive appellation of INGERSOLLISM. 

But while he has the gifts of great and splendid oratory, he lacks 
the depth and breadth, and has far less of the culture of the noted 
infidels of the past. The world has had its Voltaire, and his mag- 
nificent literature ; the Contrat Social of J. J. Rousseau, which 
promised an era of peace, prosperity and good will among men, 
and seemed to be realized in part at the famous Feast of Pikes in 
Paris, only to be followed in time by an era of blood and terror ; 
Volney with his splendid Reflections on the Ruins of Empires ; 
Hume, with his profound metaphysics ; Strauss, with his "Life of 
Christ," and Renan with his " Vie de Jesus" These men had research 
and philosophy ; they used a sophistry that taxes the strength of 
the greatest logician to detect and expose ; some of them dealt in 
raillery more refined than Ingersoll's, in satire more pointed, in wit 

3. See Draper's Conflict Between Religion and Science p 364. 



8 



more brilliant, in epigrams more spirited, in lampoons more or- 
iginal, in declamation more splendid, in descriptions more sublime, 
in reflections more profound, and in their views of natural law, re- 
ligion and sociology, they were more consistent. But they made 
no speeches. Thomas Paine was less cultivated than Ingersoll, but 
vastly more intellectual. In one particular they agree, however— 
the coarseness of their ribaldry, and the fierceness of their invec- 
tives against all who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. Tom Paine 
made no public speeches against Christianity. In this he is sur- 
passed by Ingersoll. I take Bradlaugh of England to be inferior 
to Ingersoll as a stump speaker, but his superior in strength of mind, 
thoroughness of research, and persistency of purpose. They are 
both called for by a certain class of persons described by St. Paul, 
"who will not endure sound doctrine ; but after their own lusts shall 
they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." (2 Tim. 4 : 
3.) Two phrases here describe their character-"their own lusts-" 
"itching ears." In every community there are persons whose moral 
tastes, propensities and habits are so repugnant, not only to the 
self-denying doctrines, the spiritual influences, and the elevating 
hopes of the Gospel, but to the virtuous practices enjoined in the 
moral code of Christianity, that they demand teachers who shall 
flatter them in their self-security, and ease their consciences on all 
questions relating to a future responsibility. 

Such persons hail Mr. Ingersoll as their prophet. He preaches 
to them the gospel of the flesh, and it pleases them. His lam- 
pooning of the different denominations of Christians and their 
creeds enraptures them, and his satirical hits at ministers and those 
who revere their teachings are sure to call forth their hearty plaud- 
its. His bon mots tickle them, his fierce declamation electrifies 
them, and by turning to them the humorous side of his nature often 
enough to keep their enthusiasm glowing, he innoculates them 
with his incredulity, and then, turning the sour side of his nature to 
their view, he engenders that deadly hatred of Christianity which 
he confesses he feels in his own heart. This is in part what may 
be distinctively termed Ingersollism. It is itinerant stump-oratory, 
weak in argument, reckless in statement, strong only in its self-as- 
sertion ; but black as the raven clouds of night in the gloom which 
it casts upon the grave and eternity. 

THIRD — ITS VENALITY. 

I think this is one of the peculiarities of Ingersollism. Like 
the Swiss, Ingersoll fights for pay. He cannot afford to marshal 



9 



his false gods upon the plain and in the valleys without a good round 
subsidy. He must have money to carry on his campaign against 
the God of the hills. He insists upon foraging in the enemies' 
fields, and even Christians contribute of their substance to his sup- 
port. He makes wit, grimace, ridicule and burlesque pay. They 
are his stock in trade, his capital, which he invests wherever it will 
'"do the most good." To gain plaudits, and get wide-spread notori- 
ety, is not enough for him. Conscious of a want of originality in 
his arguments, and that many of his witicisms and sharp sayings, 
his keenest weapons, are borrowed capital, he has no hope of win- 
ning a permanent reputation which even Tom Paine would not 
eclipse. Therefore he must have money, and all his addresses are 
prepared and adpated to that end. This is Ingersollism. Is it not 
peculiar? It is worse than the old infidelity. Voltaire loved money, 
and he made it by venturing in lotteries and other speculations. 
But he made no money by speech-making. He grew immensely 
rich, and built a fine chateau where he received and gener- 
ously entertained some poor, persecuted Protestants. I shall have 
a better opinion of Mr. Ingersoll when I see him spending a good 
portion of the money he gets by lecturing against the Bible, in pro- 
viding for poor believers in our Lord Jesus Christ. Voltaire once 
built a church and had it dedicated to God. When will Ingersoll 
do the like of that? How would he feel in erecting an altar to the 
God of the hills, the God that is embraced in the Trinitarian Creed, 
which he calls "that infinite absurdity?" The Trinitarian Creed 
held alike by Roman Catholics and Protestants has, as its first clause, 
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth." 
Is that God an "infinite absurdity ?" He is if the Creed acknowl- 
edging Him be such. 

Voltaire, the "Light of Europe," was in darkness, he had not 
come to the Ingersollian light, for he built a church, but Mr. In- 
gersoll says that a man had better build a home than erect a church. 

Tom Paine wrote a book — the Age of Reason — part of it in a 
prison in Paris, where he was condemned to the Guillotine, and 
which he escaped by a mere accident. But he made no money by 
speech-making, but little with his book, and died at last in extreme 
poverty and wretchedness. He never designed to make his infi- 
delity a means of support. Salvation from poverty was no part of 
his plan of salvation. Ingersollism is venal, it is mercenary. 



10 



Ingersollism is itinerant peddling in small wares — wit, ridicule, 
and burlesque. But it pays — a grimace for a penny — a jest for a 
dime, a bon mot for fifty cents, a good burlesque, with a "palpable 
hit" for a "Smiling Bland." 

Ingersollism is a speculation in risibles. Ingersoll knows that 
man is a risible animal, that with any amount of civilization and 
culture he will still laugh. Cultivate his brain. refine his sentiments, 
stuff him with philosophy, and still he will laugh. Put him in a 
circus and he will laugh at the clown in spite of all religion and all 
philosophy. Ingersoll is a good jester, he knows how to make peo- 
ple laugh, and that is the way he makes money. No matter 
whether it is a lie or the truth, or a mixture of both, if it makes peo- 
ple laugh, for it is the laughter that pays. 

Laughing is good sometimes, it is a genial, healthful exercise. 
Even religion makes people laugh, now and then. Abraham fell 
on his face before God and laughed with joy and gladness when he 
received the promise of a Messiah to come. 1 have seen Christians 
smile, and their whole faces suffused with laughter in their holiest 
religious exercises, because their religion made them happy. It 
was not mercenary laughter. 

I can, myself, laugh heartily at some of Mr. Ingersoll's good 
humor and sallies of wit. But I do not like his ridiculing of sacred 
things. I do not believe in what has been called "sour godliness." 
I like good humor, as well as the jovial, witty orator. He is never 
applauded so warmly, nor laughed at so heartily as when he makes 
a. bon mot against the Bible, or makes the Christians of the nine- 
teenth century either barbarians or hypocrites. All this I con- 
demn. It is absurd, false and impious. He causes the laugh and 
gets his pay. 

Ingersollism with the laugh left out would be a very dry 
and insipid thing. But any man that can make people laugh 
can make his fortune ; it is a surer investment than bank stock, 
or railroad bonds, or a venture among the bulls and bears of 
Wall street. Only think how little capital is required. I could 
cull from the epigrams of Voltaire and the wits of the court of 
Charles II, enough to keep you all laughing till midnight, and so 
can Ingersoll. 

Ingersollism is cupidity gorging itself by lampooning the best 
and wisest men, and ridiculing the best and holiest cause, and mis- 
quoting the most sacred Book, and blaspheming the most August 



11 

Being. Ingersollian laughter is sordid, and therefore a thing to be 
despised ; it is impious, and therefore a thing to be condemned ; it 
isa mere play of words, making a noise, like a rattle in the hands 
of a child, and therefore a thing to be reprobated as vain and use- 
less. It is an investment in risibles, and therefore venal. 

FOURTH — ITS CREED. 

Ingersoll has his Credo. He says : "I believe." This is what 
the Christian- says : Ingersoll derives, or professes to derive, his 
creed from nature, for the universe is his Bible, and it consists of 
these and a few other articles. "I believe in the gospel, of cheer- 
fulness ; the gospel of good-nature ; the gospel of good health. I 
believe in the gospel of liberty. I believe in the gospel of intelli- 
gence. I believe in the gospel of good living." 

This last article I can dispose of at once. The good living he 
believes in is not living good, but living in the enjoyment of the 
world's luxuries — a splendid home, gay equipage, sumptuous fare, 
plenty of money, and a good easy time while he lives ; fearing no 
God, defying Hell, and making the most of this life. This is the 
only "good living" known to the gospel of the flesh. It requires no 
self-denial, no cross-bearing, no praying, repenting or believing. 

Col. Ingersoll defines "Religion" to consist wholly in "man's 
duty to man." 4 It leaves out the greater part of true religion, 
namely — Man's duty to God. Hence Ingersoll's plan of salvation 
knows no sin because there is no God ; no repentance, because 
there is no sin ; no prayer, because there is none to pray to unless 
you pray to yourself. 

Well, then, after all his lampooning of creeds, here is Inger- 
soll's Creed — here is the Consensus Ingersollii, to which he would 
have the whole world bow, which none but hypocrites will reject, 
for as I shall show in due time — all, or nearly all, are hypocrites 
who do not agree with him. Here is his creed. Has it a Savior ? 
Yes ; he calls it Intelligence. "Intelligence," he tells us, "must 
be the Savior of the world." Has it a God ? It has none men- 
tioned. Why ? Because Ingersoll never speaks in positive terms of 
a God. He always or very frequently uses an "If." "If there is a 
God." But he does positively deny a personal God. He does not 
believe in a spiritual, personal Being having the attributes of intel- 
ligence, power, holiness and goodness. His Savior — Intelligence — 
is mere human intelligence. He does not believe in the God of 



4. Lecture on Skulls. Page 3. 



12 



Deism— who is the Maker of this mundane machine — the world and 
all things therein. He has a lecture— No. 15 — entitled "Personal 
Deism Denied." So he denies the existence of a personal God. 
Do not misunderstand him here. In a flippant, ironical way he 
often refersto God. Saying, God does this, or God will not do that, 
or God ought to have done this or that— and some of his hearers 
are left under the impression that he believes in a God. But I tell 
you he rejects and combats the doctrine of a personal God. Yet 
there is a deep significance in his little word "If' "If there is a 
God." It shows something more in the inner working and move- 
ment of Ingersoll's mind than appears on the surface of those volu- 
ble lectures which are characteristically described as "enjoyable 
combinations of wit and oratory." Like a famous heathen temple, 
it faces two ways — now toward the God of the hill-top, seated on 
the shining apex of truth — now towards the gods of the valley,, 
skulking amid the damps and shadows of the mountains. When it 
faces the hill-top, it betrays the universal consciousness of a God ; 
when it looks down into the valley, it belies that consciousness, and 
dallies with the false gods of Materialism and Pantheism. The 
consciousness of a Supreme Intelligence and Power is universal ; it 
is a positive conviction in the human mind ; it cannot be laughed 
away ; it cannot be thrust out by lampoonry ; it cannot be extin- 
guished by scoffs, and jeers, and sneers. It meets one at every turn, 
when he looks upon the bright sky, upon the broad sea, upon the 
beaming face of man, or woman, or child. It is in the breast of a 
savage and of a philosopher. It was in Socrates and Seneca and 
Cicero, as it was in St. Paul and Luther and Wesley. It was in 
Voltaire and Tom Paine even down to the close of life Like the 
ghost of Banquo, it would not down in the dark chambers where 
the great infidels met their fate. It is in Ingersoll. and will be in 
him to his dying hour. And in that hour he may, like Rochester, 
like Altamont, like Voltaire, like Paine, confess it.* 

That little "If" betrays the presence in him of that deep, in- 
terior consciousness, and his denial of a personal God belies it. 

* Since these discourses were delivered the following appeared in one of the city papers : 

INGERSOLLISM AT THE GRAVE. 

Colonel Ingersoll broke down at the funeral of his sister in Erie on Monday, and could not deliver the ad- 
dress which had prepared fir the occasion. A mighty change has come over his temper with reference to 
religious things since he pronounced his singular oration at the grave ot his father-in low. That was full of 
confidence in his theory of the life that now is and of the lif : which is to come, uttering it in a tone not defi- 
ant, but at least determined. Th»: tone changed at the grave ot his br >ther, and all who read the address de- 
livered there, recall it as the embodiment of pathos. Ingersoll was going through an experience new to him, 
and for which apparently his philosophy had not prepared him so well as he imagined. The third affliction 
came with crushing weight, and he bent before it like a reed bef ire lhe storm. Ingersoll's fortitude seems tt> 
be weakening under repeated afflictions, and his faith, if it may be called such, does not rise to his nece>sities. 
as he probably thought it w ould. 



13 



Atheism does not really exist, cannot really exist, as a full convic- 
tion in any human breast, and Ingersoll's doubt expressed by the 
word "If," shows that it does not exist as a full and positive convic- 
tion in his breast. In the very centre of the heart of Atheism there 
is an underlying distrust and self deception. Mr. Ingersoll labors 
to crush out this universal consciousness when he argues against a 
personal God. When he does so he leaves himself to the only al- 
ternative of chosing between Materialism and Pantheism. Material- 
ism knows no God ; it knows only eternity of matter, and life, 
and thought, and will, evolved by the molecular forces, the atoms 
that work in the bioplasm, and form the bones and sinews, the 
nerves, arteries, and veins. According to this, Ingersoll's bodily 
life comes out of vegetable life, his mind, thought, consciousness 
and will, are only products of the brain's development. His Savior 
is himself, his own intelligence. Take him as he is, and he is just 
"what he eats" — "made of wind and ashes", — "a mosaic figure 
made by the atoms". When he looks in a glass he sees only a 
bundle of atoms, made into a "fat, jolly-looking" animal, a mere 
machine that talks and laughs, and talks to make laughter ; he 
sees just what the molecules did for him ; they made him a jester 
and a wag. Molecular Force — this is the God of Materialism. If 
Ingersoll is a Materialist, and his creed and plan of self-salvation 
make him nothing better— this is the god of the valley that has 
hid himself in that creed and in that plan. If it is not this god of 
inherent, molecular, evolving force, then it is the god of Pantheism. 
According to Pantheism every thing is God — all nature is God : 
but Ingersoll is a part of nature, and therefore Ingersoll is God. 
Ingersoll, then, is the first person in the trinity of Ingersollism. 
His mutilated, fragmentary, sentimental, ideal Christ is the second. 
For this Christ he has "infinite respect." He is the son of his father 
Ingersoll, the off-spring of Ingersoll's self-love, the mere humani- 
tarian, sentimental Christ. When he presented this Christ in 
the Opera House he was greatly applauded. If any of those 
applauders are now present, I would ask them to consider the 
question, What prompted that applause ? Did they recognize that 
Christ as the true Christ of the Gospels and of Christendom ? Were 
there not present some who did not applaud, and yet admired the 
beauty of that sentiment ? Why did they let the glib-tongued orator 
take them in such a trap — a trap t,hat was mere clap-trap ? Some 
of them were deceived and came away saying, Why Ingersoll is not 



14 



so bad after all, for he believes in Christ. Was it not beautiful and 
grand when he said, "For the man Christ I have infinite respect ;" 
"To that great and serene man I gladly pay the tribute of my ad- 
miration and my tears?" Yes, you say "this was grand and beau- 
tiful." But what did you think of his description of this Christ ? 
"He was a reformer in his day. He was an infidel in his time. Ho 
was regarded as a blasphemer, and his life was destroyed by hypo- 
crites."*** "Had I lived in that time I would have been his 
friend. And should he come again he will not find a better friend 
than I will be. That is for the man. For the theological creation 
I have a different feeling." Here is the Ingersollian Christ, not 
merely a man, a serene and great man, but an infidel! He was 
not the Christ of history, not the Christ of theology and the creeds, 
not the Christ of John's Gospel, nor of any Gospel of the New 
Testament, but of that mutilated, fragmentary Gospel that Ingersoll 
quotes and accepts, not the Christ of the whole New Testament, 
that was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, 
that wrought miracles, that made an atonement for sin, that rose 
from the dead and ascended into heaven. It was the Christ of Mr. 
Ingersoll's gospel of the flesh, thst gospel that knows no God and 
Father, no justification by faith, no peace that passeth understand- 
ing, no faith that conquers the world, that triumphs over death 
and gains eternal life. The Christ of the New Testament, except 
small a piece of him, is the object of Ingersoll's detestation. Of the 
true Christ he would say as the infidels of Pilate's day said, "Away 
with him, crucify him ! crucify him ! it is not fit that such a fellow 
should live." Had Ingersoll lived in that day he would not have been 
the friend of that Christ, any more than Pilate or Caiaphas was his 
friend, for that Christ has no concord with Belial ; he that believeth 
in that Christ hath no part with an infidel. When that Christ 
comes again to earth, Mr. Ingersoll will not be His friend, unless he 
repents, is born again and made a new creature in Christ. 

Mr. Ingersoll's Christ was an infidel. Mr. Ingersoll says he was, 
and of course he must have been just such an infidel as himself, 
believing in no God, having no Almighty Father, doing no mira- 
cles, but a mere natural, sentimental man, dealing in a clap-trap 
that has no meaning. Do you not see that Ingersoll's Christ is 
Ingersoll's own shadow, and can you wonder that he worships it 
and has "infinite respect" for it ? How the words "infinite respect" 
jingled, and how'they were applauded, and how grateful Mr. In- 
gersoll ought to be for applause that was won so cheaply! 



15 



Mr. Ingersoll forgot that Christ was condemned by an "in- 
fidel." Caiaphas, before whom he was arraigned and who pro- 
nounced sentence upon him, was a Sadducee, and all the Sad- 
ducees were infidels, believing in no "Hereafter," no resurrection 
from the dead, no spiritual existence. Ingersoll is, therefore, less- 
like even his imaginary Christ than he is like the infidel " hypo- 
crite" who condemned him to death. All hypocrites, thin arc, not 
among the Christians. Ingersoll's Christ was killed for blasphemy. 
What was the blasphemy ?. He does not tell us. He read from 
the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and. seemed to accept 
them. A friend and apologist of his, in this city; says, he does ac- 
cept them. Why did he not read in Matthew where Jesus ac- 
knowledged himself to be the King of the Jews, and in Mark 
where he confessed himself to be the " Christ, the Son of the 
Blessed," and in Luke where he openly acknowledged to the High 
Priest that he was the Son of God ? This wasthe blasphemy for 
which he was put to death : Because he said he was the Son of 
God. That, according to the Jewish law, was blasphemy, if Jesus 
was no more than a man, and the law required that the blasphem- 
er should be put to death. If then, as Ingersoll asserts, Jesus 
Christ was no more than a man, he was justly put to death, ac- 
cording to the law, for arrogating Divine titles to himself. This 
man, then, whom Ingersoll says was only a man, and was killed 
for blasphemy, because he said he was the Son of God, was a blas- 
phemer, an imposter and false prophet, claiming to work miracles 
which he did not work, and pretending to rise from the dead when 
there was, according to Ingersollism, no resurrection from the dead. 
And yet the Jewish rulers were hyprocrites for putting to death 
an imposter, a blasphemer, an infidel. Ingersoll would have been 
the friend of that imposter, and if he ever comes back to earth he 
will find no better friend than the fat, jolly, laughing jester, Robert 
G. Ingersoll. You see, then, that Ingersoll, the funny man, is di- 
vided against himself, both as regards the first and also the second 
person of his trinity. In respect to his first, we see he is divided 
by his If, " if there be a God " — between the true, immortal God of 
the hilltop and the sunshine, and the beastly, sensual god of the 
valley and shadow of death, the molecular god of the atomic 
forces. In regard to his second, he is divided between the Christ 
of a mere human sentimentality, who was a blasphemer, an imposter, 
and an infidel, and the true human and Divine Christ of the whole 



16 



New Testament. The whole New Testament Ingersoll does not 
accept, but chops it up, as he does its Christ, accepting such frag- 
ments as suit him, rejecting those that suit him not. It is thus 
that he makes Ingersollism inconsistent with itself, a cluster of 
glittering generalities, an aggregation of illogical absurdities, a 
huge mass of impious self-assertion. This is the Christ that de- 
mands the tribute of Ingersoll's tears ! For what ? Because of 
the blasphemy ? No; because of the infidelity? No; of the im- 
posture ? " No ; but because of the "Sermon on the Mount." He 
has no right to the Sermon on the Mount unless he takes the whole 
of the Gospel that contains it. He has no right to that part that 
promises forgiveness to those who forgive, and mercy to the merci- 
ful, unless he takes the whole of the Gospel : He has no right to 
the part where Christ blessed the children, and said, " Except ye 
be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into 
the kingdom of heaven," unless he takes all the rest of Matthew 
— yea, and of Mark, too, and Luke and John. Matthew makes him 
Divine, and calls him the Christ, and details his miracles. In 
Matthew he is called '"the Christ, the Son of the living God," and 
that in only two chapters back of one of the passages quoted and 
endorsed by Ingersoll. Peter confessed and said, " Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God " Jesus replied, "Blessed art 
thou Simon Bar-Jona ; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto 
thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee. 
Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The three 
Gospels quoted, and in part accepted by Ingersoll, all declare the 
life and teaching, the death and resurrection of our Lord. 

Now Mr. Ingersoll is a prophet of naturalism, and does not 
believe in the supernatural. He does not believe in a Divine, 
atoning, risen and saving Christ. This he tells us. He declares 
that he believes in no Saviour but Intelligence. 

His religion is mere natural religion, grounding itself in nature, 
in reason, in his ability to save himself. It could not be otherwise, 
believing in no personal, spiritual, immortal God, the Maker of 
the universe, and the Judge of all men. Christianity, on the con- 
trary, is founded in the will of a creating, intelligent, allwise and 
powerful God. The Christian religion, like its Author, is spiritual, 
and consists in a moral change and resemblance to God, a change 
implied in the very language quoted by Mr. Ingersoll. He says, 



17 



and strange to say, for once with seeming reverence, that he is 
guided by reason's "holy torch." I do not call Mr. Ingersoll a 
''fool." I know he is not a fool. He is a man of Reason, and now 
I appeal to that Reason. He says he is a man that loves Justice 
and Truth, and I appeal to that Justice and Truth. In 
the name of Reason, in the name of Justice, in the name of 
[Truth, in the name of all the laws of criticism and honest con- 
struction, in the name of historic fidelity, I would ask Mr. Ingersoll 
why he cuts up the Gospels, accepting this or that fact, or doctrine, 
or statement, and rejecting all the rest ? I demand that he shall 
give a reason ; a reason that can bear the rigid test of all rules of 
logical criticism, why he makes up from the three first Gospels his 
sentimental, humanitarian Christ, while he spits upon, detests, 
denounces and insults the Divine, miraculously-born and saving 
Christ, the agonizing, crucified, risen and ascended Christ of the 
same three Gospels from which he quotes, and which he says he ac- 
cepts so far as he quotes? I demand this of the man who follows 
in the light of "reason's holy torch." Every candid man that 
heard him ought, in behalf of his own reason, to demand an answer 
to these questions, an answer that will not be consumed in the 
blaze of that "holy torch." O, my hearers, do you read for your- 
selves ? Have you read the New Testement — especially the three 
Gospels quoted from by Mr. Ingersoll ? I entreat you to read 
them, and see his mistakes and his misstatements. You will not 
do justice to your own souls if you accept his illogical conclusions, 
his naked, unproved assertions, without reading for yourselves.. 

Let me give you one instance that will offset more than three- 
fourths of his lecture, and utterly destroy the value of all the rest. 
He says broadly, positively, that not one word is said by Matthew, 
or Mark, or Luke, about faith, or believing, with but one exception, 
and that in Mark 16; 16. Now go and look for yourselves, and in those 
three Gospels you will find more than thirty places where the 
words "belief," "believed," "believing" or "faith," are used. He 
asserts that the words, '" He that believeth, and is baptized, shall 
be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be damned" — (Mark 
16 : 16., are interpolated. He declared that he would prove it. 
What proof did he produce ? Why, simply his assersion that there 
was not one word about believing in Matthew, nor in Luke, nor 
dsewhere in Mark ! Read those three Gospels for yourselves, my 



2 



18 



hearers, and learn how little truth there is in the assertions of 
Robert Ingersoll. 

But. alas, for the consistency of Ingersollism ! Mr. Ingersoll, 
though he quotes from the three Synoptical Gospels, and accepts 
his quotations as true, turns upon the whole New Testament and 
treats it as doubtful, if not spurious, saying that nobody knows who 
wrote it, that it bears no signature, that we don't know that it is 
the right Gospel, or whether there is a better one to come ; and he 
goes so far as to say that he does not know whether he believes 
the Testament or not until he sees the new translation. Thus he 
throws away all the Gospel he had quoted, all that had won his 
admiration, all that had moved him to tears. Is he not like a child 
that has built a playhouse, and then in a whimsical mood torn it in 
pieces ? But see, O Ingersoll, what thou hast done — thou has killed 
thy Christ in that one rnad, whimsical freak. A moment ago thou be- 
lievedst in a part of the New Testament. In it thou sawest a man 
that was great, serene and good, and thou payedst to him the tribute 
of thy admiration. Thou sawest this great, and good and serene one, 
who was himself but a blasphemer and an infidel, and yet a re- 
former, fall into the hands of wicked hypocrites, who took him and 
killed him. Thou didst swear to him eternal friendship, and he 
called forth thy tears, O, Ingersoll, why do you weep ? You have 
kicked the New Testament out of your path, as you boast, else- 
where of "kicking Hell" out of your way, and in doing so, you have 
"kicked" to death your own Christ. Now you have no historic 
Christ. You have not a fragment of even that fragmentary Christ 
left to enable you to awaken false sentiment and stupid admiration. 

You have killed him. Talk no more about the "hypocrites" 
killing Christ ; for both your Christ and your hypocrites you have 
"kicked" into nonentity. If there is another Gospel, you may not 
find your Christ in it. Why then do you weep ? Stand up, Inger- 
soll, and give a reason for your tears. Stand up before the glass, 
and see those shining globules of liquid atoms, flowing out of your 
lachrymal glands, bedewing those fat cheeks which the atoms have 
formed into such a jovial mosaic figure. In the name of the Reason 
and Justice that you worship, give a reason for your tears. I am 
ready to give a reason for the hope that is in me, and will do so ; 
it is in the Gospel of the New Testament, the Gospel of the Son of 
God, the God of the shining hill-top. Do you not see, and will you. 
not acknowledge, O Ingersoll, that He is stronger than your flesh- 



19 



born-gods of the valley ? Then give a reason for your tears. Ah, 
my dear hearers, do you not understand all this sentimental gush ? 
Do you not see that these fine phrases "the infinite respect," the 
"great and serene man"-the "tribute of admiration" and.the "friend- 
ship" and the "tears" were all put in for the sake of the sound? 
Did they not jingle a fine chorus to the jingle of the coin that fill- 
ed the witty orator's pockets ! Don't you see that there is a third 
person in Ingersoll's trinity? It is the Unholy Spirit of Cupidity. 
Ingersoll the Pantheistic God and Savior, the sentimental Christ, 
his son, and the Shining Bland — -this is the triad of Ingersollism. 
This is the triune god in the gospel of the flesh. And they have 
their unity in the fat and funny orator whose name is Ingersoll. 

Now let us analyze the Ingersolian plan of Salvation. I did 
not hear his speech in the Opera House ; I never saw the, man, but 
read the announcement in the papers that he proposed to show 
what men must do to be saved A lecture on such a subject, from 
a man of his reputation as a wit, an orator and an infidel, suggest- 
ed to my mind some oratorical trick, something in the order of bur- 
lesque, and I was therefore prepared to anticipate what I. read in 
the printed report of the lecture, that the question was treated in 
a satirical way. So it was when any allusion was made by the 
speaker to the Gospel plan of salvation. But when the lecturer 
formulated his own creed, — I saw that he meant to answer his 
question in all seriousness — or with as much seriousness as could be 
reasonably expected from a professional jester. It was in perfect 
conformity to the gospel of the flesh. It knows no sin, because it 
knows no God to sin against — no God but the blind force of Mater- 
ialism, which is tne most veritable fatalism, or the God of Pantheism 
which is Ingersoll himself. Neither has any respect for virtue, or 
for vice, or human volition, and neither has any kno wledge of sal- 
vation from sin. There is nothing from which to be saved but pov- 
erty, and sickness, and ill-temper, and melancholy, and tyranny, 
and ignorance ; for Ingersoll knows no Gospel but that of cheerful- 
ness, and good health, and good nature, and liberty, and intelligence, 
with plenty of money. But look, if you please, and see how many 
are reprobated by this gospel of the flesh. See how many poor 
people there are in the world who never can be saved from pover- 
ty ; see how many weak and sickly people there are who can never 
be blest with good health while they linger in pain upon the shores 
of time ; think how many vicious, ill-tempered people there are who 



20 



never can be made good-natured, with all the intelligence that they 
may attain ; think of the number of morose, melancholy, carewcrn, 
unhappy people, who can never, by Ingersollian philosophy, b : n:ade 
cheerful ; behold the multitudinous millions that are bound in the 
chains of degrading vice, and in the fettcrsof dark superstition, that 
no Ingersollian prophet can ever liberate. Contemplate the night 
of ignorance that envelops three-fourths of the human race 
who can never be saved from their ignorance. What help 
does Ingersollian salvation offer them? None ; they are doomed, 
all reprobated, lost, according to this gospel of the flesh. I tell 
you that the Ingersollian decree reprobates more than the Calvinian 
creed, and it is a thousand fold worse. Yet Ingersoll calls Calvin 
a murderer ! As to the Calvinistic creed of eternal reprobation, 
election and absolute fore-ordination, 1 do not believe it any 
more than does Ingersoll. But I would not call Calvin a murderer 
because of what happened to Servetus at Geneva, any sooner than 
I would call Ingersoll a murderer for killing his own Christ in the 
Opera House. In speaking of the different denominations, Mr. In- 
gersoll was quite witty, quite flippant and exceedingly abusive. He 
denounced Roman Catholics in round terms ; but I shall not be 
their apologist. He hates Presbyterians, and pronounces them "the 
worst of all." This gave him the opportunity to lampoon John 
Calvin, John Knox and Jonathan Edwards. He complains of 
John Wesley for believing in a personal devil, and in another lec- 
ture 1 he declares that all who believe that doctrine are either bar- 
barians or hypocrites. He is not satisfied with the Methodists be- 
cause they do not convert 40,000,000 people in a year. He likes the 
Episcopalians better than all except the Quakers, because they 
have less religion, he thinks, than any of the others, and thanks 
them because they "do not hate music," nor "despise painting," "ab- 
hor architecture," nor "think it worse to keep time with their feet 
than with their hands," and because they "could play cards." 

Thus his voluble tongue goes on with its jingle of words, all 
to strike at " orthodoxy," at those who " replenish the fires of hell," 
at all who " malign the human race, and kneel to a God who ac- 
cepted the agony of the innocent as an atonement for the guilty." 
This last idea, like a great many others, he borrowed from Tom 
Paine, without giving him any credit. It is a leading thought in 
the " Age of Reason." Now I know that Calvin was intolerant, 



1 Lecture on Skulls. 



21 



and so was Luther, and so was Knox, and so were the Puritans of 
Boston, and so are many in our times, and so is Ingersoll, as I will 
prove before I get through with him. His boasted freedom is free- 
dom from the restraint of law ; his love of liberty is libertinism. 
True liberty keeps the law, because it is the law that keeps it. But 
libertinism hates law ; it wants to do as it pleases. This is the 
liberty that Ingersoll preaches. It contains the germ of disaster 
to our whole country. Let all men beware of it. I tell you that 
Infidelity has been intolerant whereever it had the chance to be 
so. Was it not so in France in 1793 ? I tell you that Ingersoll 
himself is intolerant. He does not want you to think unless you 
think as he does, and if you differ from him you are either a "barbar- 
rian " or a " hypocrite." His fat jaws are stuffed with three words ; 
" hypocrite," "barbarian," " superstition," and they gush forth con- 
tinually, on almost all occasions. The following incident, which 
I clipped the other day from one of our city papers, shows the 
kind of toleration R. G. Ingersoll wants : 

"WHAT MUST WE DO, ETC. ? 

"On Tuesday evening there was a clashing in the lobby of the 
Opera House between H. W. Morrow, publisher of the Programme, 
and Mr. Chas. Davis, Col. Ingersoll's agent. Mr. Morrow had pre- 
viously obtained permission of the agent to distribute his sheet in 
the Opera House on that occasion, but did not state what its nature 
would be, consequently when the paper arrived Mr. Davis saw that 
it contained a different view from that held by Col. Ingersoll on 
' What must we do to be saved,' and demurred to their being cir- 
culated, and in Mr. Morrow's temporary absence spirited thcrn 
away. Mr. Morrow, went thereupon, on a still hunt and fishing 
them out of a waste basket in the ticket office, delivered them, by 
the aid of two boys, to the audience as it came out, thus solving 
the problem : " What shall I do to save my papers.' " 

The paper thus " spirited away " by Ingersoll's agent contained 
brief answers to the question on which he lectured, from Rev. Drs. 
Nixon, Keigwin and others of this city. 

It was not the toleration, but the infidelity of Voltaire, that 
caused the French Revolution and the reign of Terror ; it was not 
the love of liberty shown by Rousseau in his Contrat Social, but 
his infidelity that raised Sansculottism and Jacobinism, and caused 
France to dance her wild jig of frenzy at the very gates of 
Hades ; it was not the infidelity, but the patriotic writings of 



Thomas Paine, that encouraged our Revolutionary forefathers to 
cast off the chains of political oppression. It is not the wit and 
fun of the fat and jolly Ingersoll, — the Falstaff of our times — but 
his infidelity, that is sowing- the seeds of libertinism and dissolute- 
ness in thousands of American homes to-day, and working up an 
incendiary element in society, all to support this triad in the 
gospel of the flesh. 

Now let us look at the Ingcrsollian Savior. It is Intelli- 
gence. " Intelligence must be the Savior of the world." Well, 
this is self-salvation if salvation it is. But does Intelligence 
really save? Yes, it saves Ingersoll— from poverty — for he knows 
how to make it pay. But it did not save Tom Paine nor Rousseau, 
nor a score or more of other infidels whom I could name. It did 
not save the " Sea Green " Robespierre, nor the cool, brave, auda- 
cious Danton from that bloody engine, the Guillotine. It did not 
save Marat, who once perched himself upon the top of that " Moun- 
tain" on the " Left " in the French Convention, from the dagger of 
Charlotte Corday. It did not save the Duke D'Orleans, surnamed 
ft Egalite" and Madam Roland, and many thousands more, from 
the fate of Robespierre and Danton. This is what their atheism 
brought them to — the atheism of that Voltaire who Mi. Ingersoll 
tells, us, " abolished torture," — that Voltaire who he tells us " filled 
Europe with light." Mr. Ingersoll ought not to point his jests 
against his friends. That is an ungrateful satire on Voltaire to 
say he "abolished torture," if we remember the sharp edged tool 
of Dr Guillotine. Perhaps it was in revenge because Voltaire 
called that "serene, great man" of the mutilated Gospel a 
" wretch." 

The intelligence of the French infidels did not save them. 
The intelligence of Voltaire and Jean Jacques Rousseau's " gospel 
of liberty " destroyed them. 

Does Intelligence save? I am not against intelligence. I 
believe in it too. I believe in reason, I believe in culture, I believe 
in all the articles of Mr. Ingersoll's faith but one, and will show at 
the right time that the Gospel inculcates them. But I do not be- 
lieve that Intelligence is a Savior, or that it saves even Ingersoll. 

It has not saved him from wilfully abusing, misrepresenting 
and vilifying Christians ; it has not saved him from falsifying his- 
tory ; it has not saved him from the narrow bigotry he exhibited 
at the Opera House in refusing to let the people have views op- 



23 



posed to his own ; it has not saved him from blasphemy, ribaldry, 
■cupidity and the vanity of supposing that he is himself the light 
■of the world ; it has not saved htm from a libertinism that he 
satirically calls liberty. His Savior is, therefore, impotent. He is 
only a good-natured, laughing god ; a mere Satyr, like those merry 
divinities that filled the Court of Bacchus, having the heads and 
bodies of men, but with non-descript ears ; a frolicsome noisy 
set, whom Hesiod, the Greek poet, describes as " good for nothing, 
worthless fellows," and just like the Belial of the Old Testament, 
"profligate and useless." Such is Ingersoll's Savior, at whose shrine 
all the Satyrs of the plain bow and worship. Behold this laugh- 
ing, Fallstaffian god, skulking amid the sylvan shadows, hurling 
sarcastic taunts at the God of the hill-top, defying Him and all 
that He has threatened against impiety and impentinence, and ban- 
tering Him to come down and fight on the plain. Well, Ingersoll, 
He has come. He came before you arrived in the city. This you 
learned to your cost by the loss of several hundred dollars. You 
had less than six hundred of the two thousand you expected to 
join in the laugh at your frolicsome antics. He came before you 
did, and is still coming, and will keep coming, and if His servants 
in every city would treat you as they did in Wilmington, your 
shadow would be driven from the plain to hide in the dens and 
caves of the mountains. I understand Mr. Ingersoll very well 
when he says that Intelligence is the Savior of the world. I 
don't mean to misrepresent him. I have not thus far misrepre- 
sented him. If I have not literally interpreted him. I have given 
the true logical sequences of his god, his Christ, his trinity, his 
plan of salvation ; of his stump oratory and venality. Now I 
know he means that Intelligence must save the world from super- 
stition, as well as the other things implied in his creed. But he 
makes Christianity superstition. 

Well, have believers in Christ no intelligence ? Was there none 
among the Apostolic and early fathers ? Were Justin Martyr, and 
Clement, and Chrysostom and Augustine destitute of intelligence? 
Did Luther and Mclancthon and Erasmus and other reformers have 
no intelligence ? Had Atturbury and Tillotson, Baxter and John 
Wesley, Jonathan Edwards and Chalmers no intelligence ? Will 
Mr. Ingersoll go among the great poets of Christendom and find 
no intelligence — none in Milton, nor Shakespeare nor Brown- 
ing ? Will he go among the Christian lawyers — a class whom as a 



24 



lawyer, he ought to revere — and find no intelligence ? Was the great 
Trfbonian, the compiler of the Pandects and the Code and the In-j 
stitutes and the Novels, a mere pretender to learning ? Were Bacon 
and Coke and Lyttelton and Sir Matthew Hale and Sir William 
Blackstone all ignorant men ? Go among the Philosophers and Sci 
entists, and what would he say of Copernicus, and Galileoand Kep- 
ler and Newton, and Faraday and Benjamin Franklin ? Go among 
the statesmen and patriots of Christendom--Were Hampden, and 
Pym, and Cromwell and Washington fools? Is Joseph Cook an 
intelligent man ? and McCosh, and Storrs, and Bishop Simpson ? 
Are General Grant and General Garfield intelligent men ? O, Robert, 
Robert, why did you advocate that cub of the tigress superstition 
for President ? Is that grand woman of the White House, whose ex- 
ample will be a Pharos for a hundred quadrennial terms, a woman of 
intelligence ? On the other hand let me ask. Has intelligence saved 
Judge Edmonds and a score of other men whom I could name, who 
are learned in the law, and in literature, — has it saved them from the 
superstition of spiritism and necromancy? Ah, my hearers, just 
think of the jingle of these words — Superstition — Intelligence — 
Salvation ! Do you not see that they were put in merely to jingle ? 
People went to hear him jingle, he had to jingle in order to please 
them ; and thus he jingled. As merry a Satyr as ever made sport in 
the Court of Bacchus is this same fat and greasy Robert. There is no 
more connection between premise and conclusion in his use of these 
terms, than there is between the humanitarian Christ whom he de- 
stroyed, and the real Christ of history whom he says the "hypo- 
crites" destroyed. You could put the whole forest where the 
Satyrs danced between them. 

Now I do not intend that this jocular priest of infidelity shall rob 
me of my Christ and my Gospel by merely making a racket about 
my ears. I don't intend, if I can help it, that he shall rob you of 
your hope and trust in that Chriol and that Gospel by making a 
noise. This evening I intend, by the help of God, to bring him out of 
the bushes, out of that dark valley of Materialism and Pantheism, 
and make him face my God of the hill-top. Are any of you in doubt ? 
Has he shaken your confidence or hope by his cruel jests at the ex- 
pense of all that is sacred and true in religion ? Then come, I en- 
treat you, and hear me this evening. I am only half through with 
Ingersollism. I find him so big and so fat that I cannot devour 
him at a single meal. I must sup on him to-night. Come and join 
me in the feast. 



25 



You will excuse this figure, as I have good reason for using it 
just in this connection. Mr. Ingersoll, in his panegyric on Thomas 
Paine, told his audience that he had just read in the poem called 
"The Light of Asia," about the Boodh, who, seeing a famishing 
tigress with her two hungry cubs, took pity on them, and offered 
them his own flesh for food. They gladly accepted the offer, and 
greedily devoured him. He represented his hero, Thomas Paine, as 
that Boodh, standing in front of the tigress Superstition-meaning 
the Christian Church ; and the great orator would doubtless covet a 
similiar fate and willingly offer himself as "meat" for the "cubs" of 
the "tigress" who, it seems, is as voracious as ever. If it will beany 
consolation to this modern Boodh, this priest of a new atheistical 
paganism, to know it, I can tell him that some ministerial "cubs" in 
different parts of the country have been lunching on him ; and I 
have concluded to take my share while I can get it, for I think, ere 
long, there will not be much of him left but the dry bones. There 
are many thousands of "hungry cubs" in America, and doubtless 
many of them will want a mouthful. Fat as he is, he cannot sup- 
ply so many ; so let us come together and have another meal v/hile 
we can get it. 



CHRISTIANITY. 



Stand up, Ingersoll, and face my God of the hill-top. There 
He sits, enthroned in majesty, robed in garments of light. Be- 1 
fore I introduce you to Him, and compare your impotent plan of 
self-salvation with His, let us turn aside for a moment, and have a 
little talk between ourselves. And now, Robert, that we are to- 
gether for a little friendly interview, let us have some plain talk 
about that boasted reason of yours. I said some plain things to- 
day, and I shall say some plainer things to-night. But they werei 
for your shadow, not for you. Personally,I like you very well, andl 
much of your good humor I can enjoy. Besides those who know; 
you best are said to speak well of your personal character. Buti 
even if they were to speak otherwise of you, I would not mention 
it ; for your personal habits are not the topics of my discourse. I 
speak only about your shadow. 

A shadow grows shorter as the sun goes up toward the Zenith, 1 
and longer as he goes down toward the Night. A shadow grows! 
longer or shorter, but never wider or narrower. This is a broad' 
earth, Robert, and there is but a small part of it that can ever be 
darkened by your shadow, only it poisons other growths, and 
makes them, in their turn, cast baneful shadows on the groun J. Hence, 
I would save you, but destroy your shadow. The only way that 
you can get rid of your shadow is to get under the vertical rays ol 
the sun. Come with me to the top of the hill, for I mean to ascend it 
to-night. Let me show you my King in His beauty. Put yoursell 
under the shadow of His wings, and He will pour upon you such 
light that you will part with your shadow forever. But, first, let 
us step aside into this grave-yard, where you once spoke an oration. 
It was a poem — an elegy. It would be hard to find a more beautiful 
effusion in the English language. The scene was a solemn one, and 
I approach it with reverence. You stood there at the grave o; 
your own mother's son, and spoke words — the tribute of your fra- 
ternal love — which will live long in the memory of men. The) 
came from a tenderness of soul, a naturalnesss of sorrrow thai 
makes the whole world akin. Your shadow was shorter then : 
Robert, and had you gone a step or two farther, you might havt j 



27 



parted with it forever. You had but to. look steadily at that star 
)f hope until it should grow into a sun. You had but to have aided 
?ou natural reason with the telescope of faith, and your own and 
;very shadow of unbelief would have fled away, before the bright- 
;ning beams of that star of hope. What did your reason do for you 
Robert, in that moment of supreme sorrow ? One wave of unbelief 
:ame along and extinguished that star forever. All was darkness, 
ind reason was helpless. At that grave you found yourself close 
jp to an impenetrable wall. 

Your reason "dashed" against that "unseen rock " That 
'torch" went out where you fancied a "dreamless sleep" began. 
There, "between the cold and barren peaks of two eternities," you 
itood weeping, while reason lay powerless, and no message from 
:he darkness beyond "came back from the voiceless lips of the unre- 
jlying dead" — not a word. Yet with that puny and impotent 
•eason of yours you had endeavored to solve the mysteries of life 
ind destiny, of time and eternity. You have been baffled — all is 
larkness beyond that wall where no phenomena appear to natural 
•eason. On this side the wall it has a noble, an ever-expanding 
iphere. It deals with phenomena — only with phenomena. But 
:hcre are no types, no emblems, no symbols, that you study in the 
ihadows of unbelief, that can give you the vaguest idea of what lies 
>eyond the wall. It is only when a deep consciousness, which 
/our reason cannot explain, is stirred up, that you see the light of 
i star beyond the wall and hear the rustle of an angel's wing. Was 
;hat superstition Robert ? It was not irony, it was not sarcasm, it 
vas not wit, for you were sad and weeping then. You were not 
ocular, and would not trifle with the solemnity of the grave, and 
he sleeping dust of your dead brother. It was the better and 
lie brighter side of your little "If," Robert. It was the voice of 
four inner consciousness that told you a star was shining and a 
ving was rustling. 

Again you glanced toward the valley of the shadow of death, 
ind it went out. Your reason could do nothing on the other side 
jff the wall. It is a region which faith in God only can illumine — 
:ven that faith which you spurn, which you reprobate, which you 
:ondemn as the essence of superstition. On this side the wall 
wily can your reason act. 

Reason has not saved you, Robert. Intelligence is good, but 
t does not save in any sense that makes you secure beyond the 



28 



wall that separates time from eternity. You cannot find a sing 
soul that it ever saved in this sense. Those who stand with tl t 1 ! 
King on the shining Mount, know that they arc saved by faith an< 
not by intelligence. Intelligence cannot save, but often destroys! 1 
Intelligence makes the tools of the burglar ; intelligence make; 1 
machinery for counterfeiting, and this is done in more senses thai ' 1 
one. Hypocrisy is made by intelligence, it is not made by livinj 
faith. Intelligence takes the precious fruits of the earth, the goldej 
corn of the harvest, the rich clqsters of the vintage, the melloV 
fruits of autumn, casts them into an alembic — the worm-still anj 
retort — and brings forth a fiery demon that has filled the worl 
with sorrow and anguish. And you will not go with me up to th( 
top of Zion's hill, that I may show you the King of that goodlj 
clime in his robes of shining brightness ? You will go back int<(i 
the shad -s of the valley ? Then farewell, Robert ; God bless you 
God save you ; but may He destroy your shadow forever Gq 
dance your mad waltz, and crack your merry jokes with the satyr 
of the plain, till you, also, dash against the Rock, a wreck at last 

I can do nothing with thee, Robert, that will do thee an) 
good — so farewell — a long farewell. But these whom your shadow 
would poi-onand rob of their hope of eternal life, I may benefit a lit' 
tie. Come then, my hearers, since our jovial friend will not go uj 
and see our King and be His friend, let us go up to the top of th< 
hill, and pay our homage to night. Look now and behold th<i 
King in his majesty. 

"Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. I wil 
declare the decree : the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art m) 
Son ; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shal 
give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermosi 
parts of the earth for thy possession Thou shalt break theni 
with a rod of iron ; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter' 
vessel." 

My hearers, this is prophecy, and prophecy is one branch o 
the external evidence. This branch of the evidence in supporl 
of our holy religion is very broad and full, and many books have 
been written on it, showing the fulfillment of Old Testament proph 
icies and that so clearly that infidelity can only mock, and jeer, anc 
cry out "superstition", but cannot answer. I have time to deal onlj 
with this one prophecy to night, and that but verv briefly. How 
do we know it is prophecy ? Because it has been fulfilled ; because 
it is not an interpolation, put in by some one to falsify the ancienl 



29 



cord and deceive after the events were fulfilled. I defy Robert 
igersoll or any other infidel to produce one particle of proof that 
is an interpolation. It is a prophecy, written more than a 
ousand years before the advent of our Savior. It was a part of 
le Old Testament when all the books of that canon were trans- 
ted from Hebrew into Greek. God in his providence provided 
ifore hand to stop the mouth of infidelity by causing the Old 
estament to be translated from the Hebrew, which was then a 
jead language, into Greek while yet it was spoken by many na- 
ons. This translation was made by the authority and at the ex- 
;nse of a heathen King of Egypt, Ptolemy Philadelphus by 
ame. That was 280 years before the advent of Christ. The 
•anslation that was then made was the one which Jesus and 
is disciples used for the most part when they read the Scrip- 
jres in the Synagogues, and when they made quotations. That 
ime version of the Old Testament is in the libraries of several 
f the ministers of this city. It is in mine. You see now how 
asy it is to correct one of Mr.Tngersoll's glaring mistakes. He 
lys that the disciples of Jesus understood and spoke Hebrew, 
ut did not know Greek. Whereas, it was just the opposite — they 
new Greek, but could not speak Hebrew.* The Hebrew lan- 
uage has been a dead language ever since the captivity ; but 
le Greek, by reason of the conquests of Alexander the Great, be- 
ime the spoken language of Egypt, Palestine, Syria and many 
ther provinces of the Roman Empire. Cicero, in one of his Orations, 
lys that all the world — meaning all the Roman world — read 
reek, but that Latin was confined to its own narrow bounds — 
lat is Italy. The New Testament was written in Helenistic 
reek, and that was the language in which Christ and his apostles 
x>ke. You see then that for more than five hundred years before 
hrist the Hebrew was a dead language — none of the Old Testa- 
lent, after the Captivity, was written in it. For nearly 300 years 
lose ancient Scriptures, containing prophecies of what should 
appen to Egypt, to Assyria, to Babylon, to Tyre, to Jerusalem and 
) the Jews and the Romans, which were all fulfilled after they were 
ritten, were read both by Jews and many Gentiles in the Greek 
inguage. Thus they have come down to us uncorrupted for 

* In Acts XXT, 40, Paul, it is said, "spoke to them in Ihe Hebrew tongue " This was not the ancient 
ebrew, in which all of ihe Old Testament prirr to the captivity was wiitten, but the Chalda ■ -Syriac. The 
>rds IU bmioi dialckio literally mean in the Hebrew dialect. This dialect was commonly spoken through- 
t Syria including Palestine in Paul's day. The Codex Bezce renders the words te idia dialekto "in their 
'n dialect." 



80 



more than 2000 years. Now if any man says they wed 
corrupted before they were translated, just let him prove i{ 
But if he could prove it in regard to some particular passages, a 
would utterly fail in the attempt to prove the prediction, which 
have quoted about the enthronement of our King in Zion, to be ai 1 
interpolation or forgery, for that passage remains just as it wai 1 
2,000 years ago. Infidelity cannot rob us of that grand and glorjl 
ous prophecy which puts the King before our eyes. There He is 
enthroned on Zion's hill. We see him in his regal investiture — hi 
legitimate birth — the Son of God, conquering because he has powei 
to conquer. The latter part of the passage which declares that h< 
will rule the nations with a rod of iron, and break them in pieces 
refers to the kings, and rulers of the nations which had taken coun- 
sel together against the Lord and His Anointed, who said, "Lei 
us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us.' 

He has been conquering the nations ever since the [prophecy 
was written. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Tyre, Jerusalem, all fell as 
predicted by the ancient prophets. The enemies whom He shall 
break in pieces and shatter to atoms like a potter's vessel, are all 
who impiously oppose His will, His truth, and the spread of His 
kingdom. This is what every form of infidelity has always done. 
It is what Ingersollism is now doing. It is the aggregation, the 
sum, the embodiment of all the worst forms of infidelity that ever 
appeared on this earth; surpassing all others in blasphemy; in 
audacity ; in bold self-assertion ; in impious sarcasm ; in reckless 
statement ; in unscrupulous perversions of truth ; in a pernicious,! 
poisonous influence, that maddens, bewilders and demoralizes! 
great masses of men ; in a libertinism that gives the rein to every! 
unhallowed lust. It is a moral phenomenon of the 19th century, 
a laughing, lascivious, Bacchanalian god erecting its throne of 
licentiousness in the valley, and taunting Jehovah on his throne, 
asking Him to vacate it , to "step down and out" that it may 
take His place. 

But mark you, there is something else said in this psalm — 
prophecy. The laughing, impudent god of libertinism and 
sensuality is condemned and doomed. Its laughing time will soon 
be over. Ingersoll did not laugh nor crack jokes at the burial of 
his brother. He was too near then to that unseen rock where i 
wrecks are made ; too near to that wall from beyond which comes 
no voice of the speechless dead ; too near to those shadowy re- 



31 



gions where the faint light of a star was seen and the rustling wing 
was heard. Neither Voltaire, nor Paine, nor Hobbes nor any other 
nfidel ever laughed when he came to die. Then will be the time 
tpr another to laugh. " He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh,, 
fhe Lord shall have have them in derision." Yes, in another place 
it is said, " I will laugh at your calamity, I will mock when your 
fear cometh." Let those who laughed and applauded in the Opera 
House when Ingersoll cracked his jokes, and sported with the at- 
tributes of the Infinite One, and spewed over the holy oracles of 
His truth, remember this. Yes, I say, let them remember this 
now ; for they will not be apt to forget it when they come to die. 

Now I have called your attention to the prophecy that was 
locked up in a dead language 500 years before Christ came, and 
for near three hundred years had been in a language that was 
spoken in many nations. 

Infidelitv has but one answer to make to it— " David was the 
King mentioned in the Psalm, he was the ' Lord's Anointed ' spoken 
of in it " I answer that David was not that King, because in the 
first place, he wrote it himself-wrote it under the inspiration of 
the Holy Ghost, as he wrote the parallel passage in the IlOth 
Psalm, where he says " The Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou at 
my ri-ht hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord 
shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion ; rule thou in the 
midst of thv enemies." In both Psalms you see the King in Z>on 
you read his name, Jehovah, translated LORD-you see his rod 
breaking the nations ; you see him ruling in the midst of his en- 
emies. 'The terms could never apply to David. Secondly, all the 
ancient Jewish doctors who studied and commented on the Scrip- 
tures refer the Psalm to Messiah. A Messiah was promised in the 
Old Testament. The name is in Hebrew, and means the same as 
the Greek word Christ-namely, the Anointed one-Here he is the 
Lords Anointed. It was not until long after Christ came that the 
Jews construed the Psalm as relating to David, and they did so be- 
cause as they confessed, if they admitted it as referring to Messiah, 
it would prove the truth of Christianity. This is the reason why 
the infidels say the King was David. Just admit that the second 
Psalm relates to Messiah, and it sweeps Ingersolhsm, Judaism, and 
every other form of infidelity into the sea. There is no consistency 
in any construction that denies its reference to Messiah. 



32 



This Psalm was a Gospel in prophecy, as was that famous pas- 
sage in Isaiah 6 I ; 1-3. Dr. Alexander says it was "A sublime 
vision of the nations in revolt against Jehovah and His Anointed, 
with a declaration of the Divine purpose to maintain His King's au- 
thority, and a warning to the world that it must bow to Him or 
perish." 

This is the first of those prophetic Psalms, in which the promise 
made to David, with respect to the Messiah (2 Sam. 7 : 16 : 1 Chrn. 17: 
1 1 -14,) is wrought into the lyrical devotions of the ancient Church. 
Lastly, we know that it refers to Messiah, because it, as also the par- 
allel passage in Psalm 1 to, is so applied in the New Testament, and 
claimed by Jesus to refer to Himself. 1 

Here, then is a prophecy ; — a prophecy relating to Messiah, 
the Anointed, the Son of God, announced a thousand years before 
Christ made his appearance on earth. It furnishes a legitimate 
sphere for the reason of Robert Ingersoll, and all of his sort. Be- 
yond the impenetrable wall it cannot peer-it cannot act. On this 
side it can act, and now let him reason about this great prophecy. 
Let him look narrowly into history, which he says consists mainly 
in a "detail of things that never happened." He ought to speak 
more reverently of his friends, Hume and Gibbon ; but neverthe- 
less, let reason do its best to solve this question How did it hap- 
pen that this prediction can be traced with certainty back for 500 
years before Christ ? There it was, locked up in the Hebrew lyric; 
when it ceased to be a spoken language. There it was when the 
2nd Psalm was translated into Greek about B. C. 280. Let Inger- 
soll's reason now perform its duty. Let it exercise itself in linguis- 
tic and historic criticism ; in logical analysis and legitimate construc- 
tion. Let it answer the question, why this Psalm, preserved among 
the public archives of a nation, preserved in a language that had 
gone out of use, transferred to another language that continued to 
be spoken by many nations until the time of the fulfillment, was 
never changed, corrupted or interpolated until Jesus and his disci- 
ples referred to it ? 

The prophecy relates to Messiah — it is utterly false, though 
written so long ago, and preserved so wonderfully, unless it refers 
to Messiah, for it was never fulfilled by any other King that ever 
lived on this earth. Let us just glance around us among the great 
monarchies that history has stationed in our view. There was 



1. Compare Matt. 16 : 16 ; Matt. 22 : 43, 44. Acts 2 : 34. 



33 



^ Cyrus the Mede. He founded a great empire, but it never reached 
the magnitude of this one. Then there was Alexander the Great. 
It is said that he conquered the world and wept because there was 
not another to conquer, and was then conquered himself by one 
night's debauch. But he did not conquer even one world, for he 
could not subdue the wild Arabs of the desert. After him came 
the great Roman Conquerers — the Scipios and Pompey and Caesar 
—they founded an empire the most magnificent and splendid, so 
that Marcus Antoninus in the days of its greatest extent and power 
and glory reigned over 120000000 people. But it fell very far 
short of the conquests of our King. Then followed Mohammed 
and Charlemagne. They founded kingdoms and empires that 
shook the earth, but they did not embrace all the nations, they got 
no permanent heritage. Lastly, we see the most remarkable of all, 
springing from no royal line, but from the ranks of the people ; 
having no prestige but that of genius ; who was described as "grand, 
gloomy and peculiar." Napoleon Bonaparte, the fatalist, following 
the star of his destiny, rose at the dawn of this century, shook 
the thrones of Europe, played with kings and crowns as if they 
were toys, then died on a desolate island far away from the scenes 
of his conquests. I am glad that I thought of him, because he tells 
1 true story about our King, acknowledging, after aspiring for uni- 
versal empire, that Christ alone, is the universal King. "Jesus 
Christ" said he to one of the officers who accompanied him in his 
exile, "Jesus Christ is more than man. Alexander, Caesar, Charle- 
magne and myself founded great empires ; but upon what did the 
creations of our genius depend ? Upon force. Jesus alone founded 
his empire upon love, and to this very day millions would die for him." 
Then further on he says, "The soul, charmed with the beauty of 
the Gospel, is no longer its own ; God possesses it entirely. He 
directs its thoughts and faculties ; it is His. What a proof of the 
Divinity of Jesus Christ ! Yet in this absolute sovereignty He has 
but one aim — the spiritual perfection of the individual, the purifi- 
cation of his.conscience, his union with what is true, the salvation 
of his soul. Men wonder at the conquests of Alexander, but here 
is a Conqueror who draws men to Himself for their highest good ; 
who unites to Himself, incorporates into Himself, not a nation, but 
the whole human race." 

Thus spoke Napoleon, the fatalist, the conquerer, the aspirant 
for universal dominion, the fallen monarch. If I had time I 
3 



34 



could bring a number of infidels who in their better moods bore the 
same testimony. I could bring Rousseau and Hegel and Schelling 
and Spinoza. I could mention misbelievers as well as disbelievers, I 
who all unite in laudations of our King. I could mention Kant,., 
and Jean Paul Richter, and Goethe, and Carlyle and our own- 
American Channing. And, lastly, I could mention Ingersoll him-j 
self, who, when he leans to the better side of his "If," speaks ofl 
the "great, serene man, who died for man." He must have re- 
membered that graveyard experience when he uttered these words,.; 
and thought of the starlight and the rustling wing beyond the wall 
where reason's torch could not guide him. 

O, shadow of Ingersoll, what art thou, but a bundle of con- 
tradictions and absurdities ? Out of thee, O Tree of that dismaL' 
shadow, come truth and falsehood, light and darkness, good hum- 
or and blasphemy, sentiments that are beautiful as poetry can make 
them, and sentiments as infamous as Satan can suggest. Know 1 
you not that you kneel to and worship Hypocrisy itself if Jesus isJ 
not the Divine Messiah of the second and the hundred and tenth 
Psalms? Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be that very Messiah. If he 
was not, then he spoke falsely, he was a deceiver, a hypocrite, yea,: 
worse than an infidel. 

Now let us turn from this thousand year old psalm- 
prophecy, of the Old Testament, preserved and handed down 
so wondrously, to the New Testament, and see the fulfill- 
ment. We have seen the King seated on his throne in Zion ; we 
have seen him with a sceptre, a rod of iron, breaking the rebellious 
nations and peoples ; we have seen Him and heard the proclama- 
tion, this is the King, this is the Son of God ; this is to be the 
Conquerer of the world. See Him now in Zion. You know that 
Zion was the name of a hill at Jerusalem, and that Jerusalem was 
sometimes called Zion. But Zion is often put for the Church which 
worshiped in the hill bearing that name. Zion, then, was the 
Hill. Let us now look back 1880 years to the top of that hill. Do 
you see any King there ? "No ;" you say "none but Herod, none 
but his master Caesar Augustus, the Roman Emperor." Look at 
Bethlehem, six miles away, in a khan — in a stall where the horned 
oxen fed, and you see a new-born babe wrapped in rags, lying on 
the straw. Zion, behold your King ! "A pretty King is he," you 
say. No matter, look away to the Judean hill-tops. Hear that 
seraphic strain, "Glory to God in the highest." Why that strain 



35 



from the immortal choir >. It was because a Savior was born, and 
the listening Shepherd's hied them to the kahn and the stall to 
behold their Savior King. — That was Jesus of Nazareth, the King 
of the Jews. The Jews were expecting a King— not Herod, whom 
they had already ; not Augustus the Roman — they were expecting 
another King. Where did they get that idea ? From the psalm- 
prophecy — the thousand year old prophecy — preserved and handed 
down to them through thirty generations. 

Now the Gospels — the four Gospels — embraced in our New 
Testament, all say that Jesus of Nazareth was that King. They 
all declare that he was the Messiah — that is, the Annointed One. 
They call him Jesus Christ the King of the Jews. They all tell us 
that he was the Messiah. Jesus himself in every one of those four 
Gospels claims to be that Messiah, and that King. Yet he ap- 
peared in no royal state ; he had no army ; no navy ; no court ; no 
ministers. You see nothing but a plain way-faring man, traveling 
from place to place, attended by twelve poor illiterate men. 

Now Jesus always said, My Kingdom is not of this world. He 
acknowledged Caesar as the temporal king, and paid him tribute ; 
but it was with a protest which reserved his own prerogative as a 
greater King. He told his disciples that his Kingdom was within 
them — a spiritual Kingdom — a reign of righteousness, peace and 
joy in the Holy Ghost. You see it is not yet in Robert the Infidel. 

Stand up, Robert Ingersoll, and face the King enthroned in 
Zion. Is He King ? "No ;■" you say. ''He's no King, Reason is 
King, and Intelligence is the only Savior." Come then with your 
reason, Robert. Show us your proofs. 

i. Then you say "it won't do," "it won't do" is Ingersoll's 
strongest argument. It is bare assertion — "it won't do." Why ?' 
Because he says the Gospels have been interpolated. Granted. He 
says they have been interpolated in a hundred places. Granted ; 
and for aught I know more ; and for aught he knows less by fifty 
or more. But how did Mr. Ingersoll find out that they were inter- 
polated ? He never laid eyes on one of them in his life. Head- 
mits that. If he had one in his hand, and stood in this presence to- 
night, he could not read it for the life of him ; for although he has 
the gift of wonderful eloquence, and a glibness of wit and humor 
that tickles and pleases, gains applause and plenty of money, there 
is nothing plainer than that Robert Ingersoll is not a scholar. He 
is just a prophet of the gospel of the flesh, and of filthiness for ig- 



36 



norance and sin. Now to show you how much he knows about it, 
he tells you that all of those ancient Greek manuscripts, not one of 
which he confesses he ever saw, were all written in uncial charac- 
ters. Whereas, some of them are cursive. I now ask some of his 
friends to send him this challenge from me. The next time he 
comes to Wilmington to call at my study, and let me show him 
specimen fac similes of some of those old versions, and I shall 
be most happy to have him read them for me. But how came he 
to know that there are interpolations in the Gospel ? He did not 
find it out from his infidel friends. Tom Paine knew no more about 
it than he does, never saw one of them, couldn't have read it if he 
had. Where then did Ingersoll get his knowledge ? He got it 
from Christian Scholars — men who spent their lives in research, in 
critically comparing and examining, taking that which in their 
judgment had the best evidence to support it. But this man gets 
up and talks about interpolations as if, by his own genius and pro- 
found scholarship, he had made a great discovery, and thus he de- 
ceives many ignorant people. 

But any of you may search the commentaries and find them 
for vourselves. Search Clarke, search Lange, search Alford and you 
will find them. I admit that there are interpolations, inaccuracies 
and verbal mistakes, with many obsolete words, and I shall pres- 
ently explain why there are. But here let me say, that the deep 
and intricate questions involved in a translation of the Scriptures, 
and especially a consistent rendering of different versions, are 
questions for the patient scholar in his study, not for a debater, 
who argues merely for victory over an antagonist,real or imaginary ; 
for the man of learning and research, not for a lawyer, who sees 
but one side of a question ; for the critical judgment of an honest 
investigator, searching and comparing ancient manuscripts in or- 
der to get at the truth, and nothing but the truth ; not a traveling 
stump-orator seeking his support by amusing his hearers, and pan- 
dering to their "lusts" and "itching ears." It is ludicrous to think 
of R obert G. Ingersoll possessing any of the qualifications of a true 
critic and scholar. The very arguments he uses are for the most 
part second-hand, such as have been used for ages and answered a 
thousand times over. True, he has a fascinating way of putting 
his points, so as to win applause, and cause laughter, and fill his 
pockets. Chesterfield used to say that Whitefield could thrill an 
audience by the very way in which he would pronounce "Mesopo- 



37 



tamia." Even so Robert Ingersoll can call down the house by the way 
in which he puts that wonderful argument, which I admit is origi- 
nal, "It won't do." But what if there are such mistakes and errors 
in the New Testament as Ingersoll asserts ; what if the ancient 
versions differ as much as he claims that they do ; let him say if he 
ever saw. or heard, or even read, of any acknowledged version of 
either of the four Gospels that did not hold up Jesus of Nazareth as 
the true Messiah ; as the King in Zion ; as the Savior of this 
world, who was the immaculate Son of God, born of the Virgin ; 
who wrought miracles ; was crucified ; died, and then rose again ? 
Did he or any body else ever hear of a Gospel — any ancient version 
of the Gospel, that did not contain a particular narration of these 
things ? 

2. Mr. Ingersoll's second argument is that there is a "Syndi- 
cate," as he calls it in his sarcastic way, getting up a new transla- 
tion. Well, there is an association of able scholars, the ablest of 
this age, engaged in such a work — examining all the versions that 
are now extant, comparing them with a view to get out a New Tes- 
tament as free from blemishes as is possible for human intelligence to 
secure. Thus Intelligence, Ingersoll's own Savior, is at work, sav- 
ing the truth from the mistakes of copyists and translators — not 
from errorists and willful forgers. 

But wherefore the necessity ? Well, it would be a good answer 
if I should say that our Savior Jesus Christ, who Mr. Ingersoll 
thinks is a less potent Savior than his own Intelligence, wrote 
nothing. The Gospels were all written by men ; but they were in- 
spired men — men who were inspired by the Holy Ghost. The or- 
iginal compositions, those written by the hands of the Evangelists 
themselves, no man living ever saw. They were copied for the use 
of the Churches of old. The copyists were uninspired men. They 
made mistakes in copying. There were no printers in those days ; 
there were no establishments that could turn out 100,000 copies in 
a month or two, every one exactly alike to the dotting of an i and 
the crossing of a /. Everything had to be done by hand, as 
was done with all ancient literature down to the age when printing 
was invented. Now that is the reason why there are mistakes, and 
the more numerous the copies, the more numerous the mistakes. 
The hundred interpolations claimed by Ingersoll are not all inter- 
polations ; the genuineness of most of them is supported by many 
learned scholars, while other learned men dispute them. But none 



38 



of these difficulties disturb the King who sits serenely on his throne 
in Zion. Must we throw away that Bible which puts this King be- 
fore our eyes because of a few clerical blunders ? Must we dash the 
whole thing down to be trampled in the mire by Ingersollian swine, 
or what is even worse, give it to the jocular satyrs in the Court of 
Bacchus to crack their jokes over and spew out their filth upon it, 
when it is as plain as truth can make it, that the King is there on 
his throne, ruling in the midst of his enemies and gaining his con- 
quests of the nations ? What if there are not 40,000,00x3 converted 
in a year. Who is this fleshly god of the valley, this laughing satyr, 
that he should dictate to our King, and tell him to hasten with his 
work ? Ah, Robert, God will take His time ; thou. canst not hurry 
Him ; this He shows by sparing thy life for near three score years, 
and suffering thee to taunt Him during much of that time. 

Ingersoll's treatment of the Bible would throw away all his- 
tory as unreliable, if not false. He treats history a good deal like 
he treats the Bible. If it suits him, he accepts it ; if it don't sup- 
port his side of a question, he rejects it. Witness how he perverts 
the truth in regard to Thomas Paine's life and character, and how 
he misrepresents the life and character of Jesus Christ. He starts 
out with a fundamental premise — Hell must be "kicked" out of the 
way, and history, as well as the Bible, must be disposed of in a 
summary way. 

I have read three lives of Napoleon Bonaparte ; they all differ. 
What then, was there no Napoleon Bonaparte ? Was he not em- 
peror of France ? Was he not overthrown at Waterloo ? Did he 
not die at St. Helena ? All three lives assert these facts. Why 
should I throw away the united testimony because of discrepancies 
in the minor details ? I have read three lives of General Washing- 
ton. In one of them it is said that Lord Cornwallis surrendered to 
him at Yorktown ; in another it is said, the British Commander 
handed his sword to General Greene. Shall I say there was no 
General Washington because of this seeming discrepancy i 3 that he 
was not the Commander in chief of the American Army ? that he 
was not the Savior of his country ? I have read several histories of 
England. In one it is said that the battle that gave England to the 
Norman Conqueror was fought at Hastings ; another says it was 
fought at a place called Senlac. What then, was there no William 
of Normandy? was there no Norman conquest because of this 
apparent contradiction? Now this is the very nature of Ingersoll's 



39 



objections to the Gospels on the ground of the interpolations and 
the new translation. 

3. He next objects to the Gospel of John, saying it was not 
written till long after tne others, and in one place he says not until 
centuries after them. It was written after the others, I admit, and 
if it was long afterwards they must have been written in the times 
of the Apostles. Now look at the proof. John died, according to 
the best tradition, at the age of 100, or about A. D. 100. Justin 
Martyr, one of the early fathers, wrote an Apology for Christianity, 
and addressed it to the emperor Hadrian A. D. 126 ; only twenty- 
six years from the death of John. He quotes from John's Gospel 
in that Apology. Does Mr. Ingersoll mean to say that within that 
twenty-six years somebody else wrote that Gospel ? If so let him 
prove it As a lawyer that loves justice he ought to prove it. He 
made the assertion when he stood only about 100 yards from a pub- 
lic library where he might have gone and seen the writings of the 
early Christian Fathers. O, Robert Ingersoll, thou light of the 
world; thou profound scholar and critic ; thou friend of Justice, 
and Truth, and Liberty ; thou worshiper of Reason ; thou libera- 
tor of thy country from the barbarism of faith, from the supersti- 
tions of priestcraft, from the domination of hypocrisy ; thou enthusi- 
astic Iconoclast who would burn the Bible, extinguish the fires of 
Gehenna, break down the alters of the "infinite absurdity," and 
demolish churches and whatever stands in the way of thy new pa- 
ganism, why didst thou not just cross the street, and, entering the 
public library of this city, glance over the pages of the history of 
Christ's Church for the first three centuries ? Thou mightest have 
seen what Justin Martyr, and Origen, and Tertullian and many 
other Christian fathers wrote. There was no Pope then claiming 
divine titles and laying down law to senates and kings ; no hier- 
archy : no priest-ridden Churches ; no inquisition ; no Autos de Fe. 
Try. Mr. Ingersoll, to be more careful in your study of sacred bib- 
liography. 

4. John's Gospel "was writren by the Church." Which Church ? 
When, where ? How do you know it ? What is your reason for 
thinking so ? I find none better than that which a certain witty law- 
yer gives to whatever he finds does not agree with his notions. 
"It wont do." This he says with an inimitable grimace ; he says 
it to make the satyrs laugh, and they do laugh ; he does it to gather 
a crowd that can fill his purse. 



40 



See, O my hearers, how this Robert Ingersoll, who proudly i 
aspires to be his country's liberator from the shackles of error, » 
separates from the true Gospel just what pleases him, and rejects j 
the rest, and then charges that the Church wrote it in order to get a 
money. He says it in a way to have a good, jocular time over the f 
grandest and most sacred truth in the universe ; over the most 
sublime attributes of that great Eternal, All-wise and Merciful 
Being that the most enlightened nations of this world revere ; 
over the holiest feelings, and most cherished convictions of the 
human soul. See how he treats all passages which teach repen- 
tance, faith, the new birth, salvation from sin, and the retributions 
of eternity. 

In reply to this broad, but baseless assertion, I say, Robert, It 
wont do — It wont do for a good lawyer, who loves justice, and truth, 
and good fellowship among men, to make bold, sweeping asser- 
tions without proof. This is his last fling at Christianity. It is a 
confession of defeat. It is the backhanded blow of a fleeing foe. 
Driven from his munition of lies, from the glittering, flaming truth of 
the God of the hill-top, and as he flees toward the shadowy vale 
of the satyrs, he shouts back — It wont do. 

Now, let us consider the true good Gospel that Ingersoll, not 
his shadow— preached. 

"Christ never wrote a solitary word of the New Testament. 
He never told anybody to write a word. He never said ' Matthew, 
remember this, Mark, do not forget to put that down, Luke, be sure 
that in your Gospel you have this, John do not forget.'" Well, all 
this is true. Had it been said grandly, and not faceciously, and to 
make the satyrs laugh, it had been the grandest and truest utter- 
ance that ever fell from the lips of Robert Ingersoll. It contains 
something he did not see, or intend ; something that a profound 
thinker would have seen and noted. Wrapped up in this utterance, 
however flippantly spoken, I find the internal and demonstrative 
evidence. It requires but a few words to bring it out — to bring it 
out so as to kindle an ardor of gratitude and devotion in Christian 
hearts, and send a gust of praise up to the great King on his 
throne. Just look at it. Jesus, an acknowledged reformer and 
teacher of truth, an acknowledged martyr to the truth he taught, 
chose twelve men to be with him and hear him talk. Like the 
Academicians of Athens, and the Peripatetics of old, who walked 
and talked with their disciples : so Jesus walked and talked with 



41 



his. He selected them not from among the priests and Rabbis, 
who spurned his teachings and called him " that fellow : " not from 
the aristocratic Scribes and Pharisees, who constantly watched for 
an occasion to accuse him ; not from the infidel Sadducees ; but 
from among lowly fishermen, and occupants of other humble 
stations in life. They soon formed an undying attachment for 
him. He talked ; they listened. His words distilled into their 
hearts, like the gentle dew from heaven. They remembered his 
words. He did not write anything ; he did not tell them to write 
anything. He just talked ; they listened and remembered. That 
was all. But the talks of Jesus with his disciples, and in their hear- 
ing, found their way into writing, and we have the substance of 
them in the four Gospels. No matter who wrote them down, nor 
when they were written ; no matter whether Matthew wrote the 
one that bears his name or not ; no matter whether Mark, or Luke, 
or John wrote a Gospel ; the four Gospels containthe substance of 
the conversations which Jesus had with his disciples and others. 
He just left his Gospel in the memory of his Apostles, then died-, 
then rose again, and went to heaven. Was Jesus a man ? " Yes," 
says Ingersoll — "a great serene man." Did he die ? "Yes, and 
the place where he died for man is holy ground." I hold you to 
all that, Robert Ingersoll. Did Jesus rise from the dead, Robert ? 
"No ;" you say, " I don't believe it." Will you believe a witness ? 
As a lawyer you will not take mere opinion or speculation. Is 
opinion evidence ? Is speculation evidence ? Would Ingersoll, 
as a lawyer, take it to set aside any fact ? What would he demand 
as credible proof? Why, a man of good charaeter who was an eye 
and ear witness. 

Stand up then Ingersoll and face the King's witness. 

Call Peter, that man of rock, into court, and let Ingersoll be 
the Judge. What sayast thou, Simon, Son of Jona ? Didst thou 
know Jesus of Nazareth ? I knew him very well. How long ? 
About three years. Were you often with him ? Every day during 
that time. Did you see him die ? Yes, I saw him expire on the 
cross, though I stood some distance off. Was he buried ? Yes, 
in the sepulcher of one Joseph. Did you see him after he was dead 
and buried ? Yes. Where, in the grave? No, I went there early 
Sunday morning but he was not there. I saw the grave clothes, 
but he was gone. When did you see him ? The same day, in the 
evening. Did any one else see him ? Yes, there were ten Apostles, 



42 



and some other disciples, present. We saw him often within the 
next forty days, talked with him, handled him and ate with him. 
Enough. Ingersoll, do you call that witness a liar ? Do you say 
he was a hypocrite ? Do you assert that he was a villain, and, with 
others, fabricated the miracle on which Christianity rests ? Your 
shadow, Ingersoll, says all that. Come down from that seat of 
Justice, shade of Ingersoll. Lay aside that ermine which thou 
hast polluted with such foul injustice. It is but the Babylonish 
garment thou hast put on for the sake of gold. Worse than the 
worst Judge that ever took a bribe, art thou, O shade of Ingersoll. 

You say the Church invented these Gospels, and fabricated this 
story for the sake of money. You say it, or'hint it in this little tract 
which contains your speech in the Opera House. It is a correct 
edition, for you say here, "This is the only correct and authorized 
edition of these lectures, ( signed ) R. G. Ingersoll." You send that 
pamphlet into thousands of American homes, to break down the' 
testimony of that honest fisherman, Simon Peter, and destroy the 
hopes of unborn thousands. You fill it with such a dash of wit, 
such a jingle of words, such a boldness of assertion, and such a gush 
of sentiment, as to make even silly women hail you as the light of 
the world. This is the justice you, a worshiper of Justice, show 
to the memory of dead men. Robert, thou art a slanderer of the 
dead. Thou has slandered Simon Peter, that poor honest fisher- I 
man, who was put to death — crucified with his head downward, 
because he testified that his Master was risen from the dead. You 
slandered dead John Calvin. Bancroft, the historian, would tell 
you so : Mr. Guizot, the French Protestant statesman would tell 
you so : Dr. Reillet, a distinguished Unitarian divine, would tell 
you so. You slandered John Knox, Scotland's greatest Hero. 
You slandered dead' Jonathan Edwards, as pure a man as ever 
walked the earth. Rodert Ingersoll, you boast much of your love 
of justice, of your good nature, of your charity for other men in their ! 
weaknesses and frailties, and yet you have slandered the dead. 

You charge it upon Christians, in one of your pamphlets which 
I have read, that they have slandered the memory of dead Tom 
Paine ; I charge it upon you, Robert Ingersoll, that in this very 
pamphlet you slander the memory of better men, who are also 
dead. Yes ; you do it in this pamphlet which you sell for 25 cents 
that would not be worth even ten cents if it were filled with better 
things. Did ever venality equal this ? 



Now from the day of Christ's ascension down to the present, 
a iark the progress his Gospel has made. Infidel Jews tried to crush 
i |< Infidel, Pagan Rome tried to burn it out, or starve it out, or 
| .rive it out of the earth. But it lived and went on widening its 
it /ay. Papel Rome, growing more and more corrupt, and doing many 
)lfthe ugly things which Mr. Ingersoll accuses her of, covered it 
u >ver with a great pile of rubbish, and did use, if she did not invent, 
li orture ; she did send out the persecuting Inquisition to trample 
lown and destroy those who wanted to go by the simple sayings of 
esus and his holy Apostles, and not by the voice of the Pope. 
/Vho can find in the New Testament any warrant for persecution, 
or fire and faggot, for Inquisitions and Auto de Fes ? Who can find 
n the New Testament one particle of that spirit of avarice 
/hich Ingersoll attributes to Ante-Nicene Christians ; that rapa- 
:ious cupidity that prompted them, as he says, to interpolate the 
jospels in order to extort money from the credulous ? Every- 
where in Gospels and Epistles we read the very opposite ; we read 
hat covetousness is idolatry, that the love of money is the root of 
ill evil. Behold in Robert Ingersoll at this very moment an illus- 
ration of this truth. We see him trying to break down and de- 
itroy the only religion that ever brought relief and comfort to the 
ost and ruined of our race ; we see him slandering the holiest and 
surest men that ever lived ; we see him sowing broadcast such 
principles as will bring upon this land every conceivable woe, and 
dl to make money ! Yet he is the man who accuses the early 
Christians — the greatest heroes and martyrs in the world's history, 
)f forgery for the sake of money, and that our blessed New Test- 
iment contains their forgeries. Speaking of the young man men- 
:ioned in the 19th chapter of Matthew who said to Jesus, "Good 
VTaster, what good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life." 
—Ingersoll says. "In the old times when the Church got a little 
scarce of money, they always put in a passage praising poverty.' 
This he says as a proof that Christ's direction, "Go sell all that 
:hou hast and give to the poor," is an "interpolation." Is it 
lot plain that it is Ingersoll's mind that is fixed on money, not 
that of the Holy Evangilist ? 

It was not true belief in the Gospel that invented those hor- 
-ors of persecution, but unbelief. It was either disbelief or misbelief, 
[t was not true faith. True, saving faith in Jesus Christ never did 
lught to make any human being wretched on this earth. Just see 



44 



what this Gospel, left unwritten by Jesus, has done. Look at tl 6 
nations it has lifted out of the darkness of barbarism ; look at tl c 
women that it has lifted out of slavery; look at the constitution: I 
governments and laws that it has penetrated with its justice an I 
humanity; look at the great statesmen, philosophers, poets, it 
venters, philanthropists and benefactors it has inspired and stimtk 
lated ; look at the noble institutions it has. founded ; school v 
colleges, hospitals, poorhouses— asylums for the blind, for th ir. 
deaf, for the homeless, for the orphan, for the destitute. Compar i 
Christian nations with heathen ; Protestant countries with Roma* 
Catholic. You see what the Gospel of Jesus has done. It ; s ntit 
marvelous, is it not miraculous? Next to the resurrection ey 
Jesus Christ on which it is founded, the greatest miracle of J I 
the ages is Christianity. Where can infidelity point to such ere ic 
dent.als ? Where are the nations that it has enlightened and lifted 
up^ Wln re are the governments which it has penetrated and en k 
nobled. made humane and just? Frances-do you point tl 
France? It had two monsters-St Bartholomew, born of mis , 
belief .and its twin brother, the Guillotine, born of disbelief. Tell m, r 
not of France. Infidelity has no credentials but those that an 
writ en ,n blood, and crime and pollution. It cannot point to 
sing e «nst,tutio„ of pure benevolence and mercy that it eve, 
erected. Individual infidels may here and there have contribute" 
to them; but infidelity. never founded one, never built one nevei 
supported one Remove their only prop and stay and hey at 
smk into decay. Infidelity has no nourishment for Them. f 
Why has Infidelity done no good in the world ? Because ti* 
has no power to do good-no disposition or desire to do goodV 
Why has it done so much evil in the world ? Because of its inhf ren 

refin~^ 

*-n* its victim ^^^t^^ ™ ^ 

truth and goodness in it. Th^ld sW Tl ^tL^oTJ ' 
before you a full view of the internal evidence the con, T I 



45 



lieve with the heart unto righteousness— not unto sin, iniquity 
id hypocrisy. The Gospel saves them, for it makes them good- 
itured and cheerful, requiring them to rejoice evermore and to be 
mtent with such things as they have. It saves them by appeals 
> their reason and intelligence, as well as their hope and their con- 
ience. It is also a Gospel of intelligence. /'For God hath not 
ven to us the spirit fear, but of love and of power and of a sound 
.ind." But the best of all is that it saves from sin. The blood of 
isus Christ the Son of God cleanseth from all sin. What else can 
p it ? Sin is not an invention of the priesthood, but a deadly virus 
t the human heart, and that is what has filled the world with mis- 
-y. The Gospel in its true sense asks or constrains men to ask, 
What must we do to be saved from sin ?" Ingersoll's shadow is 
\ie laughing satyr that turns it to ridicule. The heathen jailor of 
hilippi trembled when he asked that question. Would God that 
ngersoll might tremble when he asks it again. 

Finally, he says the New Testament cannot be true, because it 
(oes not bear the signature of God. But there Robert is mistaken, 
nd I can say to him as he has so often said in his funny way— It 
ron't do. God has affixed his signature, I don't mean to the 
■archment-on which Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote, I never 
aw one of them and don't know anything about that. But still I 
ay God has affixed his signature. This I know, and I could sum- 
mon thousands of witnesses whose testimony would be taken in 
ourt Were they on the stand to testify, Robert G. Ingersoll, 
hrewd lawyer as he is, would be put to confusion by their an- 
wers I can get good, truthful, credible witnesses in this congre- 
gation to testify that God has affixed his signature to the Gospel. 

Do you say all these witnesses are liars ? That all the good 
nen and women who are ready to testify to this fact-for it is a 
act-are hypocrites ? Where is the man or the woman that would 
xave the heart to say so cruel a thing ? The best people in this 
vorld are ready to testify that God has accredited the Gospel by 
,is own signature. Here, then, is a crucial test In it al my argu- 
ments centre. Christians-true spiritual Christians can testify and 
do testify-not to a dream, for a dream is not taken in court-not 
to a fancy, or an opinion-for these things are not listened tc > in 
court-but to something they know. Now, for the proof-God 
says "In all places where I record my name, I will come unto 
thee and I will bless thee". Now, to record it, means to write it, 



46 



means to make it known. There are more ways of writing thar l 
with pen and ink, and there are more things to be written m that b 
paper, or sheepskin, or stone, or metal, or wood. Some things; 
can be written on the fleshly tables of the heart. God, ther - 
records His name. He makes a promise thai He will record His i 
name, and that is His signature. Jesus also promised that if an> | 
man would do the will of God, he should know of the doctrint I 
whether it be of God or merely of man. Christians have accepter, j 
this test, and have found it true, for the Spirit beareth witness ! 
with their spirit that they are the children of God. This is the 
Demonstrative evidence. This no man can deny. If a man can- 
not say that he is himself born of God, how can he bear witness 
that there is no new birth ? Such a witness would not be admitted 
into court. Who ever was brought into court to prove a negative j 
All of Ingersoll's arguments are brought up to prove a negative 
As a lawyer he knows that none of his testimony can be admitted 
in court. A court of Justice is a bar of reason, and at that bar In- 
gersoll, the devotee of reason, is rejected, because he has nothing 
to prove but a negative, and a negative is incapable of proof. The 
Christian proposes to prove an affirmative proposition. He 
says I know — I know in whom I have believed — I know that I 
have passed from death unto life — I know that my name is> written 
in the lamb's book of life. No infidel can say this — no unbeliever 
can say it truthfully. A hypocrite may say it, but it is not true in 
his case, only a true Christian can say it truthfully, and all true 
Christians do say it, Tor they have all tested the matter and found 
it to be true. God has set to his seal that the Gospel is true. 
He has affixed His name and signature to that Gospel. O, blessed 
truth — O would that thou wert here Robert Ingersoll, and that 
thou wouldst humbly kneel at the alter of the Great King, and 
pray until thou shouldst be baptized with the baptism of light and 
love from on high. I know just what thou wouldst do then. Thou 
wouldst stand up weeping before this whole congregation. Thou! 
wouldst confess that thou hast been mistaken. That in the blind- 
ness of thy folly and the madness of thy unbelieving zeal thou 
hadst upbraided thy Maker, hadst falsified thy reason, hadst denied! 
the very instincts of thy being. 

I call this the Demonstrative argument. It is the demonstra- 
tion of the Spirit. It is the deep logic of the soul. It is the union 
of a sound mind with a pure heart. It is the marriage of Reason 



47 

and Faith. They embrace lovingly, and nothing can divorce them 
but sin. O Robert Ingersoll, let thy Reason seek its nobler 
spouse. Thy Reason once stood up close to the "unseen Rock" 
— the impenetrable wall, when Faith like a coyish maiden, came 
near with starlight in her eye, and rustling her white wings of 
purity. You retreated into the shadows. Come back, come back, 
O wanderer ; yield to the charms of loving, trusting Faith ;; 
consent to be joined to her in eternal affiance. Then, whom God 
hath joined together, let no man put asunder. 



INGERSOLLISM 

BROUGHT FACE TO FACE 

WITH 

CHRISTIANITY. 



TWO SERMONS PREACHED 

BY 

REV. J. H. CALDWELL, D. D., 



AT THE REQUEST OF OFFICIAL MEMBERS OF ST. PAUL'S M. E. CHURCH, 
JANUARY l6, 1 88 1. 



AND PUBLISHED IN COMPLIANCE WITH A RESOLUTION OF THE 
WILMINGTON PREACHERS' MEETING. 



THE BENEFIT OF THE MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF THE METHODIST EPIS- 
COPAL CHURCH. 



WILMINGTON, DEL.: WT1JWV 

THE IAMES & WEBB PRINTING AND STATIONERY COMPANY. 

I88l. 



COPYRIGHTED. 




RD-17 





, « • °« > V * ^ a,v 5.', . , »ji$42P^» Bl 







\ ***** _ 



1 ■ ^ °^ i 



» * * A° , 

a fir * 1 * * © 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
S Treatment Date: Jan. 2005 



V **t!\* % * PreservationTechnologies 

*^ </' t »' A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 



A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



